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: 24
83
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra

It wasn't an article, it was a copy of a doc from the PD.


Again point out where it gives the reason for the termination.




posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Ok...

it doesnt work in the legal realm and since we use that instead of a court of public opinion.. well...


I am not a legal professional and very much a public persona. I am free to judge anyone as I see fit as I have no binding legal authority over them.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra

I already answered, his shorts slipped and he instinctively went to pull them up. Why are you ignoring that fact?


I am not.. He was told to keep his hands where they could be seen and he failed to do so.

Your answer is not valid given the situation and the laws in question.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

The option to use SOP of having him stand hands in the air and walking backwards was available and the video shows that.
edit on 10-12-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Did you see the doc? Here's the link

Next to the little box with the x, it says I.A.


edit on 10-12-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Ok...

it doesnt work in the legal realm and since we use that instead of a court of public opinion.. well...


I am not a legal professional and very much a public persona. I am free to judge anyone as I see fit as I have no binding legal authority over them.


Sure...

and ignorance is a choice and willful ignorance is a problem.

Using the excuse of not being a legal professional and a public person doesnt support your position. As a matter of fact it undermines it.

If people are so convinced they know better then why are they not pushing to make changes to law and procedures? According to some opinions the problem is clearly identified - now what is your plan to fix it?

Or is this one of those throwing rocks at something because you dont understand it and are unwilling to learn about it?

Contrary to single minded thinking learning about the law and police procedures and the law does not mean you have to support it. On the other had failing to educate on the topic makes you a part of the problem and not the solution.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Sure...

and ignorance is a choice and willful ignorance is a problem.


I'm not really concerned if people think me thinking this cop was a gung-ho asshole is ignorant, otherwise I would have kept my opinion to myself and not posted it on a social media platform.

I'm glad he got s*** canned, he was a lunatic.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra

Way back in the thread someone pointed out that it was because of the arrest for this very incident so, there you go.


None of the articles posted define the reason for termination. All it says is he was terminated after this incident.

Feel free to point out in any of the articles the reason he was terminated.


He was fired because he had Your efed engraved on his gun. As someone else pointed out in the thread why is etching a problem now and not when he has the gun inspected to use for duty?

As TADAMAN pointed out earlier average citizens are not trained on how to be arrested . When you just round a corner minding your own business and then theres guys with automatic rifles pointing at you screaming your gonna die if you move.

Some peolle might get a little freaked out by that.

And the fuk^^^IN cop should no this.. They are trained. You always in here defending this bs. He might have had a gun he might of done this there might have been someone else in the room.

Why the fu$$ is those 2 cops lives or safety more important than this guys? Maybe you guys should do your effing jobs without thinking everyone wants to kill you.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra

The option to use SOP of having him stand hands in the air and walking backwards was available and the video shows that.


That is not "SOP" and if you are going to make that claim by all means cite us the part of the departments policy that supports your claim.

There are many different ways of taking a person into custody. That depends on totality of circumstances and other factors, like location, proximity of civilians, weapons involved, alcohol or drugs involved, number of officers present, compliance, resistance etc etc.

There are differing methods that go along with defensive training techniques, whether it is PPCT / Gage / Clamp, certain approved martial art styles and those fit into a use of force continuum / subject resistance control techniques.

What you see on tv is not reality as more goes into the situation than what people know.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra

Did you see the doc? Here's the link

Next to the little box with the x, it says I.A.



Yup - did you bother to read it because nowhere does it say it was for the situation in question.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Sure...

and ignorance is a choice and willful ignorance is a problem.


I'm not really concerned if people think me thinking this cop was a gung-ho asshole is ignorant, otherwise I would have kept my opinion to myself and not posted it on a social media platform.

I'm glad he got s*** canned, he was a lunatic.


Not at all.. the ignorance comes in when you refuse to understand required elements of the situation - like the law, police procedures etc.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

Yup and others are claiming it was because of this incident when his termination notice says otherwise.

Yes - law enforcement is trained.

That being said why do civilians think its ok to ignore the law / requirements and substitute their own personal opinion as if it were law itself?
edit on 10-12-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Police Officer's Handbook: An Introductory Guide

Are you saying they could not have done that? The video shows that they could have. That is the benefit of hindsight.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Not at all.. the ignorance comes in when you refuse to understand required elements of the situation - like the law, police procedures etc.


The only thing I need to know of the situation was his behavior on the video.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra

Police Officer's Handbook: An Introductory Guide

Are you saying they could not have done that? The video shows that they could have. That is the benefit of hindsight.


Done what? Pulled out a generic manual and flipped through it for guidance?

Hindsight is not available when the situation is unfolding and that is why it cannot used in the manner you and others want it to be used.

You set yourself up for failure by doing that and compound the error when refusing to learn the parts law enforcement is required to make.

You want change to the system? Then learn about it and approach the situation from a position of knowledge.

It is whats required of law enforcement.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Not at all.. the ignorance comes in when you refuse to understand required elements of the situation - like the law, police procedures etc.


The only thing I need to know of the situation was his behavior on the video.


and that is why the only thing you are going to take from the situation is anger and confusion because you dont understand the basics involved.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

He was charged in march of 2016. That doc has the date 3/21/16. Do you know of any other I.A. investigation he was under?



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   
May be this incident played into his firing. Did IA say it had nothing to do with the shooting?



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
and that is why the only thing you are going to take from the situation is anger and confusion because you dont understand the basics involved.


I neither angry nor confused, I'm appalled and also sad for the man that was killed.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra

He was charged in march of 2016. That doc has the date 3/21/16. Do you know of any other I.A. investigation he was under?


Point out in that termination document where it says he was terminated for shooting a person.

Since you might be unaware an Internal Affairs Investigation ONLY investigates violation of departmental policies and has absolutely no bearing on the criminal aspect of the case.

Unlike in criminal law where a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty an IA investigation operates in the opposite - you are guilty until you prove your innocence.



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join