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: 4share:
reply to post by defcon5
I can't make my mind up whether you don't realise you're still making assumptions, or whether you're deliberately being obtuse.
As said before, and ignored by yourself, we've been told he was feuding with the neighbours for years. A feud is not one-sided. Just because he had guns in his house, does not mean he necessarily threatened the neighbours with one. Maybe he did, but in the UK at least, without uninvolved witnesses to corroborate or refute, it's hearsay, not fact. Cause for concern, but not proved fact. I understand it's quite the norm for Americans to have guns about their homes. I didn't think it was unusual. So you can not possibly know that he went back in to, "ditch the gun he'd been brandishing."
The fact that he didn't come outside when the police asked him to does not, as you assert, prove that he had done, or was about to do anything to warrant killing him.
There's talk of him using the child as a shield - it's not known whether he realised it was the police he was even answering the door to. And though the article you've quoted states he leaned inside the doorway when he was shot, the other article said he'd turned round and was going back inside when they shot him. How does anybody know he wasn't just trying to take the child in out of harm's way?
Kindly don't refer to me as an armchair quarterback. It's rude. What I've done is simply point out, quite factually, that you have made assumptions based on what the police wanted to release, without there having yet been a shred of proper evidence that the shooting was justified.
Once again, failing to give 100% immediate co-operation to the police seems to be just cause for the police to murder people (in this case, the man didn't go outside when told to), and people like you seem to think that's fine. I think it's crazy.
I can't make my mind up whether you don't realise you're still making assumptions, or whether you're deliberately being obtuse.
As said before, and ignored by yourself, we've been told he was feuding with the neighbours for years. A feud is not one-sided. Just because he had guns in his house, does not mean he necessarily threatened the neighbours with one. Maybe he did, but in the UK at least, without uninvolved witnesses to corroborate or refute, it's hearsay, not fact. Cause for concern, but not proved fact. I understand it's quite the norm for Americans to have guns about their homes. I didn't think it was unusual. So you can not possibly know that he went back in to, "ditch the gun he'd been brandishing."
The fact that he didn't come outside when the police asked him to does not, as you assert, prove that he had done, or was about to do anything to warrant killing him.
There's talk of him using the child as a shield - it's not known whether he realised it was the police he was even answering the door to. And though the article you've quoted states he leaned inside the doorway when he was shot, the other article said he'd turned round and was going back inside when they shot him. How does anybody know he wasn't just trying to take the child in out of harm's way?
Kindly don't refer to me as an armchair quarterback. It's rude. What I've done is simply point out, quite factually, that you have made assumptions based on what the police wanted to release, without there having yet been a shred of proper evidence that the shooting was justified.
Once again, failing to give 100% immediate co-operation to the police seems to be just cause for the police to murder people (in this case, the man didn't go outside when told to), and people like you seem to think that's fine. I think it's crazy.
edit on 17-2-2012 by Toffeeapple because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by Toffeeapple
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Okay…
Again…
In THIS country police are allowed to shoot you for other reasons besides you having a gun in your possession, or threatening the police with a gun….
even an civilian can shoot someone under certain circumstances, and having a gun on them is not the only one of them.As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
We know. That doesn't mean it's OK to blast people's brains out without a good reason.
reply to post by Xarian6
Yes, because everyone should jump on the hate police bandwagon with you.
If you don't like alternative viewpoints, then maybe ATS isn't the site for you.
Yes, because everyone should jump on the hate police bandwagon with you.
If you don't like alternative viewpoints, then maybe ATS isn't the site for you.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Originally posted by Kyprian
Agreed..except I see nothing about the victim having hostages, threatening terror-related actions, or, well, anyone's life being in jeopardy. Unless holding your own grandkid is a death worthy crime.
he didn’t take a gun over to the neighbors to bake a cake with it, now did he?
He took it over there to threaten and intimidate them with violence.
That is probable cause in and of itself:
The best-known definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime".[2] Another common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".
The police didn’t have to witness this in person either, and to be honest, the neighbors would have been justified in defending themselves as well in many states.
Originally posted by Kyprian
Oh, by the way, "several officers called for him to come out" does not a drawn out standoff make. Simply means a guy didn't want to go outside. No crime there, either. Unless I missed the part about a warrant?
that is resisting arrest.
As I said, police don’t just all walk around with sniper rifles. That means this went on for an period of time long enough for an officer qualified in that firearm to reach the scene, set up, and wait for a chance to take the shot without risk of injury to the child involved.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
reply to post by Kyprian
He was holding his own grandchild hostage....
Seems like a good enough reason to me.
He was thwarting police. Defcon is right, this man's actions isn't of someone who is protecting a child.
He was holding his own grandchild hostage....
Seems like a good enough reason to me.
He was thwarting police. Defcon is right, this man's actions isn't of someone who is protecting a child.
reply to post by defcon5
So if I say my neighbor threatened me with a gun, that means he did, right? Because ( maybe I'm thick....) but I don't recall reading the officers actually SAW him with a gun, although one report did indicate he had something "black" (my guess? Jellybeans.)
As for "resisting arrest", were they calling to arrest him? Or just saying "come out"? One means you are about to slap cuffs on me and carry me away, the other means "let's talk". Don't recall anything IN THE REPORT about the victim resisting arrest. Again, must be dense.
Grandchild as hostage. Got to remind my mother not to pick up my nieces and nephews, or she could get the back of her head blown off. Still trying to figure out how THAT one fits into "he deserved it, hurr hurr"
Seriously, if CREDIBLE (not MGM All-Star singing and dancing scarecrows) evidence is shown, fine. Otherwise, someone got a little carried away. Even if he WAS at fault, there are means of incapacitation besides murder. Just sayin'.
So if I say my neighbor threatened me with a gun, that means he did, right? Because ( maybe I'm thick....) but I don't recall reading the officers actually SAW him with a gun, although one report did indicate he had something "black" (my guess? Jellybeans.)
As for "resisting arrest", were they calling to arrest him? Or just saying "come out"? One means you are about to slap cuffs on me and carry me away, the other means "let's talk". Don't recall anything IN THE REPORT about the victim resisting arrest. Again, must be dense.
Grandchild as hostage. Got to remind my mother not to pick up my nieces and nephews, or she could get the back of her head blown off. Still trying to figure out how THAT one fits into "he deserved it, hurr hurr"
Seriously, if CREDIBLE (not MGM All-Star singing and dancing scarecrows) evidence is shown, fine. Otherwise, someone got a little carried away. Even if he WAS at fault, there are means of incapacitation besides murder. Just sayin'.
Originally posted by defcon5
he didn’t take a gun over to the neighbors to bake a cake with it, now did he?
He took it over there to threaten and intimidate them with violence.
That is probable cause in and of itself:
Oh my God!!! How do you know he took it out at all? It's hearsay! How many more times?
They might have been aware he owned weapons (plenty of Americans on here boast about it) and just have been sh!t-stirring.
Originally posted by defcon5 that is resisting arrest.
Not unless they told him they were placing him under arrest it isn't. Or if it is, the laws in the States are again at odds with English law.
Originally posted by defcon5As I said, police don’t just all walk around with sniper rifles. That means this went on for an period of time long enough for an officer qualified in that firearm to reach the scene, set up, and wait for a chance to take the shot without risk of injury to the child involved.As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
So without knowing the geographical distance of said sniper, you're painting a picture of it having gone on for a long time. Does it say anywhere that the other police turned up at the door in advance of the sniper?
Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Kyprian
He was holding his own grandchild hostage....
Seems like a good enough reason to me.
He was thwarting police. Defcon is right, this man's actions isn't of someone who is protecting a child.
Why don't you read the rest of the thread and the links? Nowhere does it say the child was being held hostage.
reply to post by Toffeeapple
First off, you are a lllllonnnnggg way from Phoenix.
Secondly, before having a knee jerk reaction on an article that has barely more then 8 sentences to it, here is a little education for you.
Arizona is the NRA flagship state. If you have a driver's license, you can open carry. It is only a three hour course to conceal carry.
Which means everyone, is armed to the teeth. Even grandma will pack heat.And everyone is well trained. You go to a bar there and there are signs that you gotta check firearms at the door.
Not to mention who knows what the real population is since a third is probably illegal.
It is still the wild west only with air conditioning.
Phoenix is now the sixth largest city in the US, competing closely with Philadelphia. Which is tremendous considering this growth has only been in the past 30 years. When I lived there, towns were going up so fast they didn't even have police or fire coverage yet and houses would burn to the ground.
The population is extremely transient. For every two people that stay, three leave. You rarely meet people who have lived there more then 10 years.
So you have a very young city, that grew to a massive size in a very short period of time, where EVERYONE has a gun, things are a little different for both citizens and police there.
So YOU need to stop making assumptions.
First off, you are a lllllonnnnggg way from Phoenix.
Secondly, before having a knee jerk reaction on an article that has barely more then 8 sentences to it, here is a little education for you.
Arizona is the NRA flagship state. If you have a driver's license, you can open carry. It is only a three hour course to conceal carry.
Which means everyone, is armed to the teeth. Even grandma will pack heat.And everyone is well trained. You go to a bar there and there are signs that you gotta check firearms at the door.
Not to mention who knows what the real population is since a third is probably illegal.
It is still the wild west only with air conditioning.
Phoenix is now the sixth largest city in the US, competing closely with Philadelphia. Which is tremendous considering this growth has only been in the past 30 years. When I lived there, towns were going up so fast they didn't even have police or fire coverage yet and houses would burn to the ground.
The population is extremely transient. For every two people that stay, three leave. You rarely meet people who have lived there more then 10 years.
So you have a very young city, that grew to a massive size in a very short period of time, where EVERYONE has a gun, things are a little different for both citizens and police there.
So YOU need to stop making assumptions.
edit on 17-2-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)
reply to post by Toffeeapple
A healthy person does not hold a child to them, keep guns around them and resist arrest while holding a hostage. IF this man had no hostile intentions, he would of simply came out and talk to the police. Period.
A healthy person does not hold a child to them, keep guns around them and resist arrest while holding a hostage. IF this man had no hostile intentions, he would of simply came out and talk to the police. Period.
Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Toffeeapple
First off, you are a lllllonnnnggg way from Phoenix.
Secondly, before having a knee jerk reaction on an article that has barely more then 8 sentences to it, here is a little education for you.
Arizona is the NRA flagship state. If you have a driver's license, you can open carry. It is only a three hour course to conceal carry.
Which means everyone, is armed to the teeth. Even grandma will pack heat.And everyone is well trained. You go to a bar there and there are signs that you gotta check firearms at the door.
It is still the wild west only with air conditioning.
Phoenix is now the sixth largest city in the US, competing closely with Philadelphia. Which is tremendous considering this growth has only been in the past 30 years. When I lived there, towns were going up so fast they didn't even have police or fire coverage yet and houses would burn to the ground.
The population is extremely transient. For every two people that stay, three leave. You rarely meet people who have lived there more then 10 years.
So you have a very young city, that grew to a massive size in a very short period of time, where EVERYONE has a gun, things are a little different for both citizens and police there.
So YOU need to stop making assumptions.
Ha! It sounds like you're making a damned good argument for an arms ban, which will make you rather unpopular with the other Americans here who are smitten with their right to bear arms.
Where I am is completely irrelevant to understanding right from wrong, and discerning fact from assumption.If I've made any assumptions, please point them out to me.
Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Toffeeapple
A healthy person does not hold a child to them, keep guns around them and resist arrest while holding a hostage. IF this man had no hostile intentions, he would of simply came out and talk to the police. Period.
One little question, please : WHERE DOES IT EVER SAY HE HAD A HOSTAGE? We must be reading different reports. That, or you are so determined to prove that police can do no wrong that you HAVE do demonize this victim. You make claims about what a healthy person does. So owning firearms is a sign one isn't healthy? Really now.
Further, I have seen a good number of instances in my hometown where police ASKED someone to come out and they didn't wish to. Didn't end with, and I'll use small words, a bullet in THE BACK of someone's braincase.
And please, can it with the straw men. There was no pocket gun, stress, hostages and the police only had hearsay that the victim was brandishing a gun in the first place.
Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Toffeeapple
A healthy person does not hold a child to them, keep guns around them and resist arrest while holding a hostage. IF this man had no hostile intentions, he would of simply came out and talk to the police. Period.
I won't respond to you in future unless you demonstrate you've read the rest of the thread, because you're making me repeat points already made, which is annoying.
You do not know he accosted the neighbours in the way described - it's hearsay. It might be correct, and it equally might not.
He didn't necessarily know it was the police he was opening the door to whilst carrying the child.
He may well have been heading inside to put the child out of harms way when the police shot him in the head.
Since the police are known to be unduly violent over there, he may not have wished to go out and speak with them with the child in his arms. That doesn't prove he had hostile intentions at all. He may - with just reason - have been in fear for his life.
edit on 17-2-2012 by Toffeeapple
because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-2-2012 by Toffeeapple because: (no reason given)
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Originally posted by Kyprian
So if I say my neighbor threatened me with a gun, that means he did, right? Because ( maybe I'm thick....) but I don't recall reading the officers actually SAW him with a gun, although one report did indicate he had something "black" (my guess? Jellybeans.)
Again, the police don’t have to actually see the gun, one was reported and that gives them “probable cause” to believe that one might be present. When they ask the person to come out and talk with them, and he refuses and picks up a child that adds to their “probable cause”. They can also judge by the demeanor of the person what the situation most likely is.
Originally posted by Kyprian
As for "resisting arrest", were they calling to arrest him? Or just saying "come out"?
It does not matter, under US law they are allowed to make a “terry stop” for any reason whatsoever, and you have to comply. If you refuse to comply you have provided them with a “reasonable suspicion”, and they have to right to make you comply:
The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968),[2] in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity;[3] the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspect’s outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be “armed and dangerous”.[4] When a search for weapons is authorized, the procedure is known as a “stop and frisk”.
To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.[5] Reasonable suspicion depends on the “totality of the circumstances”,[6] and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous.[7]
Originally posted by Kyprian
Grandchild as hostage. Got to remind my mother not to pick up my nieces and nephews, or she could get the back of her head blown off. Still trying to figure out how THAT one fits into "he deserved it, hurr hurr"
When the police are at your door with pistols un-holstered telling you to come out, refusing to do so and placing an innocent by-standard in harms way could be considered “taking a hostage”.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
Originally posted by Toffeeapple
Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Toffeeapple
First off, you are a lllllonnnnggg way from Phoenix.
Secondly, before having a knee jerk reaction on an article that has barely more then 8 sentences to it, here is a little education for you.
Arizona is the NRA flagship state. If you have a driver's license, you can open carry. It is only a three hour course to conceal carry.
Which means everyone, is armed to the teeth. Even grandma will pack heat.And everyone is well trained. You go to a bar there and there are signs that you gotta check firearms at the door.
It is still the wild west only with air conditioning.
Phoenix is now the sixth largest city in the US, competing closely with Philadelphia. Which is tremendous considering this growth has only been in the past 30 years. When I lived there, towns were going up so fast they didn't even have police or fire coverage yet and houses would burn to the ground.
The population is extremely transient. For every two people that stay, three leave. You rarely meet people who have lived there more then 10 years.
So you have a very young city, that grew to a massive size in a very short period of time, where EVERYONE has a gun, things are a little different for both citizens and police there.
So YOU need to stop making assumptions.
Ha! It sounds like you're making a damned good argument for an arms ban, which will make you rather unpopular with the other Americans here who are smitten with their right to bear arms.
Where I am is completely irrelevant to understanding right from wrong, and discerning fact from assumption.If I've made any assumptions, please point them out to me.
It is completely relevant, since you seem to like to make judgements about a city you know absolutely nothing about, on a situation you were not part of, but accuse everyone else of making assumptions on said situation.
And you have no idea on what my stance is on arms, considering I moved from the most gun conservative state to the most liberal, so I have a unique view.
Has nothing to do with a arms ban, that is another thread of which there are already many. It is easy to sit in your comfy little home where everyone around you isn't armed, in another part of the world and where crime isn't rampant because of a massive influx of an illegal population and your border is a war zone due to drug cartels.
Not only have I lived in that state, that city, I lived in that town.
Glendale is a trouble spot for Phoenix. The crime rankings are not only higher then the rest of the state, but higher then the national average across the board.
If you can't take some facts about an area and work it into your opinion, no wonder you are ignorant.
It is completely relevant, since you seem to like to make judgements about a city you know absolutely nothing about, on a situation you were not part of, but accuse everyone else of making assumptions on said situation.
And you have no idea on what my stance is on arms, considering I moved from the most gun conservative state to the most liberal, so I have a unique view.
Has nothing to do with a arms ban, that is another thread of which there are already many. It is easy to sit in your comfy little home where everyone around you isn't armed, in another part of the world and where crime isn't rampant because of a massive influx of an illegal population and your border is a war zone due to drug cartels.
Not only have I lived in that state, that city, I lived in that town.
Glendale is a trouble spot for Phoenix. The crime rankings are not only higher then the rest of the state, but higher then the national average across the board.
If you can't take some facts about an area and work it into your opinion, no wonder you are ignorant.
I disagree, and deflect your claim of ignorance back at yourself, since you seem to be arguing that because it's a rough area, it's OK to shoot grandad to death without knowing if he's committed any crime at all.
Double post.
edit on 17-2-2012 by Toffeeapple because: (no reason given)
reply to post by defcon5
But they didn't make him comply with their frisk to check for weapons in his outer garments. They shot him in the head.
For the 3rd or 4th time, how does anybody know he wasn't heading in with the child to take him / her out of the way?
I notice you said he picked up the child. I'll re-read the articles, because I thought he'd been reported to have answered the door with the child already in his arms. Even if it's the former, it's being portrayed as a cowardly thing, in using the child as a shield, yet when I picture myself in those circumstances, I'm sure I'd instinctively pick up my little-one in a protective way to stop him / her wandering outside - then I'd take him or her in, out of the way.
But they didn't make him comply with their frisk to check for weapons in his outer garments. They shot him in the head.
For the 3rd or 4th time, how does anybody know he wasn't heading in with the child to take him / her out of the way?
I notice you said he picked up the child. I'll re-read the articles, because I thought he'd been reported to have answered the door with the child already in his arms. Even if it's the former, it's being portrayed as a cowardly thing, in using the child as a shield, yet when I picture myself in those circumstances, I'm sure I'd instinctively pick up my little-one in a protective way to stop him / her wandering outside - then I'd take him or her in, out of the way.
Originally posted by Toffeeapple
Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Toffeeapple
A healthy person does not hold a child to them, keep guns around them and resist arrest while holding a hostage. IF this man had no hostile intentions, he would of simply came out and talk to the police. Period.
I won't respond to you in future unless you demonstrate you've read the rest of the thread, because you're making me repeat points already made, which is annoying.
Wait, says the same person who keeps making the same assuptions and arguements over and over without considering the information. You have't even demonstrated that you understood the first article.
You do not know he accosted the neighbours in the way described - it's hearsay. It might be correct, and it equally might not.
Reading comprehension is a valuable skill. The original article clearly states that the feud has been going on for some time, which means this guy is a repeat offender. Go back and read.
He didn't necessarily know it was the police he was opening the door to whilst carrying the child.
Now this is just lame. Because all those pretty blue and red lights and sirens didn't tip him off?
Again, reading comprehension is a valuable skill. He came out, and went back in and THEN refused to come out.
He knew at that point it was the police. AND, they were using a megaphone.Which they tend to introduce themselves.
He may well have been heading inside to put the child out of harms way when the police shot him in the head.
He should of put the child down before even answering the door to the police.
Since the police are known to be unduly violent over there,
No they are not really, ATSers desperately look for and misinterpret articles like these so they can slay authority.
I work with every kind of law enforcement from FBI to campus police. I have yet to see anyone abuse anything.
he may not have wished to go out and speak with them with the child in his arms. That doesn't prove he had hostile intentions at all. He may - with just reason - have been in fear for his life.edit on 17-2-2012 by Toffeeapple because: (no reason given)edit on 17-2-2012 by Toffeeapple because: (no reason given)
A man pulling up a chair and lying down a rifle and a handgun on the chair is looking for a fight. Haven't you ever watched a western??
Besides, many arizonians would be pissed that he even layed arms in reach of a child.