Posted on 03/14/2013 7:37:45 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
An incident involving a teenager who was shot by police after he pointed a .38 at them has enraged Brooklynites and caused three straight nights of rioting.
From NY Daily News:
At least 46 demonstrators were arrested along Church Ave. in East Flatbush. Police struggled to control a hostile crowd that broke away from a planned peaceful vigil for Kimani (Kiki) Gray, 16, killed by police on Saturday night.
Gray's sister Mahnefeh was among those arrested. A police officer suffered a gash in the face when a tossed brick hit him, NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said, and a window was smashed in an inspector's car.
"They didn't have to kill him," Makaeo Williams, 18, said as police on motorcycles tracked alongside him. "I'm feeling mad inside. I'm angry. That's why I'm out here." Many in the community contest police allegations that Gray pointed a gun at cops when he was shot during a confrontation with two plainclothes officers on E. 52nd St. Saturday night. Those suspicions on the street intensified Wednesday when an autopsy report revealed Gray was hit by seven bullets -- three to the back.
It was not clear in what order the shots struck the teen or whether he had his back to the police when they opened fire .
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Why? Without knowing anything, it could be he turned when we was falling after the first bullets hit,and they continued shooting.
7 isn’t that many shots for 2 people.
If any shots were in the front, it’s pretty clear that he was facing the officers at some point.
And it is much more unlikely that a person with his back to police would actually turn FORWARD after being shot in the back — but even it that were not the case, shots in both the front and back clearly indicate the man turned while being shot, one way or another, so clearly he COULD have been shot in the front first, and then spun around and collapsed while still being shot.
Or, maybe one officer was behind, and one in front, when the shooting started, so the one behind shot him in the back while the guy was pointing the weapon at the officer in the front.
And why is it that when these types of groups gather to protest violence, they actually commit widespread violence?
He was in new york city, so isn’t he committing a heinous crime just by CARRYING a weapon?
If you read the story the mother admits he had a gun, but claims he was just carrying it for a friend.
And somehow, she “knows” that he was just showing it to police so they would know he was armed.
Lucky you!
Given police officers have progressed to be an occupying army of globalists... the kid gunman was shot in the back.
No more benefit of the doubt to cops for me from what I have seen happen in their anti-constitutional amoral training and trainers. If I am on the jury, I am looking for police state fibs in equality with racist lefty fibs.
This is so, even though one of the main organizers for the rioters is an open racist communist looking for a communist “revolution” so he can oppress, harm and kill whitey.
What a mess moral realitivism and globalist treason creates for Western civilizations.
Sounds like BS...
Which part???
If that bill passes the Senate, and the House, no more large capacity magazines can be sold in this country. I've heard some congressmen say this part of that bill will be cut out of the original bill in the Senate and passed on its own in order to get it passed.
This is weapon suppression bit by bit.
I can call in, “identify myself” as this kid’s uncle and say whatever I want. They media will run with whatever is said as long as it meets their agenda. Part of their agenda in NYC is covering up for the NYPD to avoid riots.
Think about the power of the “cousin” statement:
-The “low-information” types and people who personally knew the kid will accept it and see the kid as some poor fool who got involved with the wrong “friends”. They won’t get upset at the media since he is not being explicitly portrayed as a gangbanger. Just a kid doing a stupid youthful mistake and getting shot for it. A tragedy but the shooting is justified.
-The higher-information types will assume the “cousin” is giving a BS cover story and was stupid enough to confirm her cousin had a gun. It will “confirm” to them he had a gun and obviously did more than “hold it for a friend”. They will think “hey, the cousin’s story is obviously a cover-up and he’s a gangbanger”. Shooting justified.
-Most importantly it will “prove” guns are bad and will get you (or your friends) killed by cops.
All bases covered…
So then whose gun was found at the scene???
Here's a named friend of his with a pretty big "but ...."
Some people use them for other things but I don't want to be specific.
I know a lot of cops and many have drop guns.
That's fine -- but whose fingerprints were on it.
Even his buddy who was named in the article indicated that him having a gun was a possibility with the big "but ...".
“That’s fine — but whose fingerprints were on it.”
That’s why you keep drop guns in socks...
Even if the prints look a bit strange, do you really think the NYPD crime lab would admit it if riots would result?
I’m really hoping the cops are justified but more evidence is needed than a $20 junk piece. His “buddy” only said he doubts the kid had a gun, but IF he did he definitely wouldn’t point it at cops. He’s saying everything about the cops’ story is unlikely from what he knows.
It’s getting to where we could write the obits for these guys. So spot on.
His buddy is trying to cover for him and yet even in covering for him he admits that he might have had one —
On the street that is as good as an admission that he had one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.