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.

 

Video shows police killing of Daniel Shaver in Mesa, Arizona (viewer discretion advised)

page: 20
84
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Well I've watched.... and rewatched that video a couple of times now, I've even waited a while to comment because I was so riled up after watching it.

No matter how much I put myself in the position of that LEO..... at that moment..... I cannot for the life of me justify the actions carried out. A big part of good police training is the efficiency of identifying a threat.......... within 5 seconds of that couple turning that corner .... I (as well as many others here) would not have deemed them a threat that warrants those actions carried out....... why did he?...... after thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours training why did he ??..... it's not normal. The victim was not a threat.




posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



at what point is it ok for an officer to shoot? When he can SEE the gun?

Well duh..ya, that probably the right time, not one godamned second before.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: keenmachine

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: keenmachine

I already said that the cop seemed like a douche and went overboard with his instructions, but at the moment he pulled the trigger he was fully justified in doing so.


his overboard instructions are what led to a mistake and watching the video I felt the guy was gonna screw it up just by his state of mind and confusion. I just don't understand why it had to come to that when a simple pat down and search while the guy is on the floor and maybe a question or two and everyone goes home alive. the cop is in charge why make a difficult situation worse? Unless of course the cop just wants to be difficult.


I don't disagree - but once it got to the moment to make a decision to fire or not, the cop made the correct call.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: UKTruth



at what point is it ok for an officer to shoot? When he can SEE the gun?

Well duh..ya, that probably the right time, not one godamned second before.


Once a gun is drawn a cop doesn't have a goddamned second. Hence they are authorised to use deadly force in situations where they do NOT see a gun.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Bullsh#t, the cop had his AR aimed at the guy, primed to go..he clearly had the drop on him.
I don't believe for 1 second he was going to pull a gun from behind him, point it forward and aim and shoot before he gets plugged.
edit on 10-12-2017 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

You mean ignore human reflexes like putting your hands out if falling or reaching for falling pants.

Pretty hard.

Catch 22.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

your die-hard defense of the killer cop is quite nauseating. you sound like a perfect little slave



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: UKTruth

Bullsh#t, the cop had his AR aimed at the guy, primed to go..he clearly had the drop on him.
I don't believe for 1 second he was going to pull a gun from behind him, point it forward and aim and shoot before he gets plugged.


You would be 100% correct that the cop had the drop on him and the guy never had a chance of pulling a gun out and shooting the officer. In other words, the officer did his job, using his advantage to ensure the guy could not kill him. If however, he had waited until he identified a gun, it could be too late. It seems he was not prepared to risk his life quite so easily as you would risk his life.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
In other words, the officer did his job...


If he did his job so well why does he no longer have that job?



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra

You mean ignore human reflexes like putting your hands out if falling or reaching for falling pants.

Pretty hard.

Catch 22.


What, you want to the officer to make a split second call as to whether the guy was reaching behind himself because he wanted to pull his pants up?
Not a difficult call at all - shoot.

edit on 10/12/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
In other words, the officer did his job...


If he did his job so well why does he no longer have that job?


He was not fired for the incident. He was acquitted.
In his action to shoot the guy, he did his job properly.
I have already commented on whether I think he is a good cop that does his job well more broadly. Perhaps read the thread?



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
He was not fired for the incident.


Yes, he was.


He was acquitted.


Being acquitted in a criminal trial doesn't preclude you for being terminated with cause after the trial, which he was.

And you should take your own advice and read the thread. This was posted earlier:


After reviewing the incident, Mesa Police Chief John Meza decided to terminate Brailsford, effective immediately, the statement said. read me.





edit on 10-12-2017 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

No, I'm saying that the guy should not have been put in that situation.

They spent like 4 minutes in that hall with him doing the hokey pokey.
edit on 10-12-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No, he was not fired for shooting the guy. He was fired after a full review of the incident which included the revelation that the idiot has 'You're f*****' emblazoned on his gun.

I am saying he did his job correctly when he shot the guy - the rest of it I have already called out as wrong. Much earlier in this thread.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: UKTruth

No, I'm saying that the guy should not have been put in that situation.

They spent like 4 minutes in that hall with him doing the hokey pokey.


Don't disagree with that.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
No, he was not fired for shooting the guy. He was fired after a full review of the incident which included the revelation that the idiot has 'You're f*****' emblazoned on his gun.


If he was fired solely for the inscription on his weapon it would have said that. He was fired after a review of the incident and terminated.

And rightly so in my opinion, he was a gung-ho hot dog looking for confrontation.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
No, he was not fired for shooting the guy. He was fired after a full review of the incident which included the revelation that the idiot has 'You're f*****' emblazoned on his gun.


If he was fired solely for the inscription on his weapon it would have said that. He was fired after a review of the incident and terminated.

And rightly so in my opinion, he was a gung-ho hot dog looking for confrontation.


I did not solely say for the inscription.
My argument is that he made the right call to shoot the guy in that moment - what I mean by 'incident'. He did his job correctly.
He had no option at that point without severely risking his own life.
The rest of it, yeah, he was a douche. Already said that.

edit on 10/12/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
He did his job correctly.


And we're back to him not having that job.

If the Mesa police force thought he was such a bang up officer he'd still be there. But he isn't.

This man is a confrontational menace.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
He did his job correctly.


And we're back to him not having that job.

If the Mesa police force thought he was such a bang up officer he'd still be there. But he isn't.

This man is a confrontational menace.


He is clearly a power-crazed menace - but I still go back to the point that in shooting the guy he did his job correctly. That is not the reason he was fired.
His crappy attitude escalated a situation to a point where he was faced with a split decision and in the moment he made the right one, which Is I suspect why he was acquitted.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=22942673]UKTruth[/post
That is not the reason he was fired.
His crappy attitude escalated a situation...


Those two sentences are conflicting and mutually exclusive.

He was fired for how he handled that scenario, as per the Mesa Chief of Police. The inscription was also a factor but not the sole factor.



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join