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: 25
84
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

We all know hindsight isn't available during the situation, that is why it's called hindsight, duh.

I just pointed out that it isn't something that could be viewed as SOP.

Who said I wanted to change anything? I'm just pointing out mistakes in a shooting video made public.




posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
May be this incident played into his firing. Did IA say it had nothing to do with the shooting?


It lists various policy violations but no, there is nothing specific to the shooting listed in the document. As I said IA investigations only investigate policy violations. They do not investigate criminal acts by the police.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Point out in that termination document where it says he was terminated for shooting a person.

I pointed out that it was because of the I.A. investigation.


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.

Who said it had any bearing?


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.

What other I.A. investigation was he under between the shooting and March 21, 2016?
edit on 10-12-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra

We all know hindsight isn't available during the situation, that is why it's called hindsight, duh.

I just pointed out that it isn't something that could be viewed as SOP.

Who said I wanted to change anything? I'm just pointing out mistakes in a shooting video made public.


Hindsight cannot be used to review the actions of the officer because that is not available to the officer at the time of occurrence. You and others are trying to base an argument off of information that cannot be used to do so in the first place.

Since you and others think it was a training issue the goal would be to identify the problem, identify the laws / court rulings that apply and then create a solution to the issue as you see it.

If all you want to do is complain about the officer yet not bother to try and fix then you would be no better than the officer you condemn.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Pretty obvious who was the perpetrator and who was the victim.
This pig WILL suffer. I hope he suffers deeply until he takes his own life.
I hope he suffers more than the victims family.
I hope he gets to feel the fear, the terror and the helplessness of his victim over and over again.
This is disgusting and there is NO justification for his actions, and no excuse for there not being simple protocols in place to avoid this happening.
I feel sick.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: roadgravel
May be this incident played into his firing. Did IA say it had nothing to do with the shooting?


It lists various policy violations but no, there is nothing specific to the shooting listed in the document. As I said IA investigations only investigate policy violations. They do not investigate criminal acts by the police.


So may one or more of those dept violations occurred during the shooting.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

That is all hindsight is useful for. Pointing out the mistakes is identifying the problem. How is that done without hindsight?

I'm not complaining about anything. I'm just pointing out what could have been done differently.

ETA: What argument do you think I'm making?
edit on 10-12-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
I pointed out that it was because of the I.A. investigation.

and i am telling you to point out in that IA termination sheet where it says he was terminated because of the shotting.

You cant because it is not listed and instead of conceding that you are trying to deflect in hopes no one notcies that hole you dug for yourself there.


originally posted by: daskakik
Who said it had any bearing?

I am saying that because people seem to be confused as o the purpose and differences between a criminal investigation and an IA investigation.



originally posted by: daskakik
What other I.A. investigation was he under between the shooting and March 21, 2016?

No idea.. IA results are generally not released to the public until the entire IA process, up to and including appeals by the officer, is completed.

With that said point out in that IA document where it deals with the shooting in question. If you read back thru the thread you might have noticed he was fired for what he scratched into a firearm he used.

I am assuming you ignored that because it doesnt support your position that he was fired because of the shooting.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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?


WTFare you talking about? What law did this guy break? Who the f$$$$ shoots a crying man , begging for his life?

Who broke no laws and was absolutely no threat.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
and i am telling you to point out in that IA termination sheet where it says he was terminated because of the shotting.

Are you saying that the I.A. investigation wasn't because of the shooting?



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: roadgravel
May be this incident played into his firing. Did IA say it had nothing to do with the shooting?


It lists various policy violations but no, there is nothing specific to the shooting listed in the document. As I said IA investigations only investigate policy violations. They do not investigate criminal acts by the police.


So may one or more of those dept violations occurred during the shooting.


If I had to guess I would say its a mixed bag of10% related - 90% unrelated.

Terminating a person based on that situation without allowing other investigations or criminal proceedings to finish is recipe for disaster.

Chances are the officer had other IA complaints sustained and this situation was the excuse the department needed to terminate the cop. That doesn't mean he violated any policies during that incident though if that makes sense.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra

That is all hindsight is useful for. Pointing out the mistakes is identifying the problem. How is that done without hindsight?

I'm not complaining about anything. I'm just pointing out what could have been done differently.

ETA: What argument do you think I'm making?


and im telling you hindsight 20/20 cannot be used to review an officers use of force in the legal realm.


If you or others care -
The SCOTUS ruling is in Graham vs. Connor and it established an "objective reasonableness" standard for use of force. When law enforcement uses deadly force it is a technical seizure under the 4th amendment.

Opinion of the Court

Graham held that determining the "reasonableness" of a seizure "requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake." It acknowledged, "Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it." However, it then noted, "Because the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application," the test's "proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case."

The Court rejected the notion that the judiciary could use the Due Process Clause instead of the Fourth Amendment in analyzing an excessive force claim: "Because the Fourth Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against this sort of physically intrusive governmental conduct, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of 'substantive due process,' must be the guide for analyzing these claims."

The Court then explained that, "As in other Fourth Amendment contexts...the "reasonableness" inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation." The Court also cautioned, "The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."

The Court then outlined a non-exhaustive list of factors for determining when an officer's use of force is objectively unreasonable: "the severity of the crime at issue," "whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others," and "whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."

Having established the proper framework for excessive force claims, the Court explained that the Court of Appeals had applied a test that focused on officer's subjective motivations, rather than whether he had used an objectively unreasonable amount of force. The Court then reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration using the proper Fourth Amendment Standard.


If you insist on using hindsight 20/20 then you have no reasonable basis to be upset when the courts find an officer not guilty or when a prosecuting attorney or grand jury decline to prosecute an officer for their actions.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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?


WTFare you talking about? What law did this guy break? Who the f$$$$ shoots a crying man , begging for his life?

Who broke no laws and was absolutely no threat.


Waving a firearm around is a law violation.
Being intoxicated while waving a firearm around so is a law violation.
Doing in the presence of members of the public is a law violation.
Failing to obey lawful commands is a law violation.

Mostly felonies...

Want me to keep going or?



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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?


WTFare you talking about? What law did this guy break? Who the f$$$$ shoots a crying man , begging for his life?

Who broke no laws and was absolutely no threat.


Waving a firearm around is a law violation.
Being intoxicated while waving a firearm around so is a law violation.
Doing in the presence of members of the public is a law violation.
Failing to obey lawful commands is a law violation.

Mostly felonies...

Want me to keep going or?


Last time I checked a pellet gun is not a firearm.. Any excuse you can make to blame the dead guy.

Pathetic.
edit on 10-12-2017 by notsure1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Xcathdra
and i am telling you to point out in that IA termination sheet where it says he was terminated because of the shotting.

Are you saying that the I.A. investigation wasn't because of the shooting?



3 investigations occur when law enforcement kills someone.
* - IA - handled by the department the officer works for and only reviews compliance with departmental policies / guidelines.
* - Criminal investigation - A criminal investigation looks at possible criminal violations by all parties involved and is usually handled by an involved agency or depending on the size of the department an internal criminal investigations division / IAB setup.
* - Civil rights violation - An investigation usually handled by the feds to determine if the officers actions violated the rights of the person in question.

The IA investigation and the shooting are not mutually exclusive. Even more so given the speed in which he was terminated.

To me it looks like the officer had a history of sustained IA complaints and when this occurred, the department pulled out all of those IA issues and terminated him to "get ahead" of the PR coming their way.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
and im telling you hindsight 20/20 cannot be used to review an officers use of force in the legal realm.

This isn't the legal realm.


If you insist on using hindsight 20/20 then you have no reasonable basis to be upset when the courts find an officer not guilty or when a prosecuting attorney or grand jury decline to prosecute an officer for their actions.

Who said I was upset?



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

He was allowed to have a pellet gun. He worked as an exterminator. Large animals with rabies need to be shot but not with a gun.

He was not on duty so he could be drunk all he wants. He did not take the pellet gun out of his room. He was observed in his room with the gun by someone outside.

None of what he did was illegal or a threat to the public.



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



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Someone pointed out that that policy seems to make it easy to get ahead of the PR.

Either way it was tied to this incident.
edit on 10-12-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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?


WTFare you talking about? What law did this guy break? Who the f$$$$ shoots a crying man , begging for his life?

Who broke no laws and was absolutely no threat.


Waving a firearm around is a law violation.
Being intoxicated while waving a firearm around so is a law violation.
Doing in the presence of members of the public is a law violation.
Failing to obey lawful commands is a law violation.

Mostly felonies...

Want me to keep going or?


Last time I checked a pellet gun is not a firearm.. Any excuse you can make to blame the dead guy.

Pathetic.


A pellet gun that uses a gas cartridge is classified as a .177 caliber and is a firearm under most state laws. A gas gun is another weapon that uses a gas to propel an item from the weapon.

In both cases an item that can discharge an item that can result in serious physical injury or death are restricted by law.

Arizona revised statute - definition

4. "Firearm" means any loaded or unloaded handgun, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun or other weapon that will expel, is designed to expel or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. Firearm does not include a firearm in permanently inoperable condition.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

If you arent going to worry about legal standards then why debate me on the topic?



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join