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: 26
84
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
Either way it was tied to this incident.


When you provide the reason in the termination memo that references this specific instance then sure.

Until then it does not.




posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

uhm no.

The items werent determined to be pellet guns until after the fact and pellet guns are classified as firearms in Arizona (particularly the ones the guy used in his job).
edit on 10-12-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
If all some of you want to do is bitch without context or involvement of the laws in question just say so and I can stop responding to your posts.

If you want to learn then ask and we can go from there.
edit on 10-12-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
If you arent going to worry about legal standards then why debate me on the topic?

Who said I was debating you?

I pointed out that the guy had a reflex reaction to his shorts falling because he was instructed to crawl and in doing so his shorts started slipping. That is just an objective observation.
edit on 10-12-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

How about you pointing out all the other I.A. complaints/investigations? Since that is what you are basing your argument on.

All I've seen is that one.


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



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Um, That changes nothing.

He was in his room and someone saw in.

He was allowed to have it. He works in an industry that has a legal need to use that TOOL.

AND beyond that, none of what he did was illegal or a threat to the public.

Also, he COULD have sat still and ignored any other command. If not, peaceful protestors can be shot nation wide for refusing to comply with their arrest....not for resisting, but for refusing to help arrest themselves.

Clear?


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



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Some states may regulate air guns but they are not fire arms based on Federal Law.


The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives states that:

The term "firearm" is defined in the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(3), to include "(A) any weapon (including a starter gun), which will, or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon...."

Based on Section 921(a)(3), air guns, because they use compressed air and not an explosive to expel a projectile, do not constitute firearms under Federal law — unless they are manufactured with the frames or receivers of an actual firearm. Accordingly, the domestic sale and possession of air guns is normally unregulated under the Federal firearms laws enforced by ATF

Link



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   


As I said IA investigations only investigate policy violations.


And a policy violation could occur in a situation such as this.

A pellet gun is not fire arm so waving one isn't waving a fire arm. A man flapping his arms doen't make him an airplane, even if he is wearing an airplane costume.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Wouldn't the classification of firearm be based on the velocity? it is here..over 500 fps is classified a firearm, under is not classified as such.
I have read the statute you posted..CO2 is not an explosive.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel



As I said IA investigations only investigate policy violations.


And a policy violation could occur in a situation such as this.

A pellet gun is not fire arm so waving one isn't waving a fire arm. A man flapping his arms doen't make him an airplane, even if he is wearing an airplane costume.






Pretty sad you need to explain that, the justification for this shooting is poor .

Looks like X will need some back up to convince us civilians it was a good shoot.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

and an irrelevant one.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra

How about you pointing out all the other I.A. complaints/investigations? Since that is what you are basing your argument on.

All I've seen is that one.



and as I said point out in this IA report where it discusses the shooting.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Nope -

The guy was confronted in the hallway as you can see in the video. The pellet guns were located in the room and were found after the fact.

Pellet guns fall under firearms laws in Arizona and I cited the applicable state law.

As for threat to the public you dont know that and either did the officers. Hence the reason they were called and why they were trying to get the people into custody in order to find out what was going on.

again learn the law before trying to make a similarity comparison. A protestor and a guy waving a firearm around at a hotel are completely different things and trying to say they are the same is asinine to say the least.

In case you missed it the guy in the hotel was not protesting nor was he using passive resistance. He was told to keep his hands where they could be seen and instead he moved towards his waistband. That action coupled with the nature of the call, IE weapons being involved, is completely different than some schmuck protesting and refusing to move when told to do so.

Clear?
edit on 10-12-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

You left out a key part. From your source -


Although the federal government does not normally regulate air guns, some state and local governments do; the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence has compiled a list of states and selected municipalities that regulate air guns, finding that 23 states and the District of Columbia regulate air guns to some degree.[31] Two states (New Jersey and Rhode Island) define all non-powder guns as firearms; one state (Illinois) defines certain high-power and/or large calibre non-powder guns as firearms; three states (Connecticut, Delaware and North Dakota) define non-powder guns as dangerous weapons (but not firearms).[31] The remaining states which regulate air guns impose age restrictions on possession, use, or transfer of non-powder guns, and/or explicitly regulate possession of non-powder guns on school grounds.[31]

New York City has a restrictive municipal ordinance regulating air guns.[31] Air guns were previously banned in San Francisco, but a state preemption statute struck down the ban, and the San Francisco District Attorney declared them legal as long as in compliance with state law.[32]

New York state law prohibits anyone under the age of 16 from possessing an air gun.[citation needed]

Along with state laws, local county laws or ordinances may be relevant to users of air guns. Generally, state laws do not mention air gun laws, but local counties do.[citation needed]


Since federal law does not regulate it does not mean the states cant and as you can see the states do regulate them, including Arizona.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel



As I said IA investigations only investigate policy violations.


And a policy violation could occur in a situation such as this.

A pellet gun is not fire arm so waving one isn't waving a fire arm. A man flapping his arms doen't make him an airplane, even if he is wearing an airplane costume.


A pellet gun is a firearm in the state of Arizona and I linked you to Arizona law. I also pointed out the part that was left out of federal law and classification of air guns, where it specifically states states can and do regulate them.

Finally, and i cant believe I have to repeat this -
A person waving an item around that resembles a firearm will be treated as such until the scene is secure, people are secure / under control and a more thorough investigation and determination can be done.

It is why people who have toy guns that point them at cops get shot.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
Pretty sad you need to explain that, the justification for this shooting is poor .

Looks like X will need some back up to convince us civilians it was a good shoot.


I dont need to. The jury, who found the officer not guilty, already took care of that. Given the issues recently in Australia and your law enforcement maybe you should stick to your own home country problems before weighing in on ours while acting as if Australia law enforcement is the end all be all to law enforcement on the planet.





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



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
To quote Metallica,
Nothing can save You,Justice is lost,justice is raped,justice is gone..



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Xcathdra

Wouldn't the classification of firearm be based on the velocity? it is here..over 500 fps is classified a firearm, under is not classified as such.
I have read the statute you posted..CO2 is not an explosive.


.22 caliber is a close equivalent to a pellet gun that is .177.

The primary determination would be the ability of the weapon in question being able to inflict serious physical injury and or death.

CO2 is a gas and can be used to discharge projectiles in a gas gun that, again, puts out a projectile capable of causing serious physical harm and or death.

The part in questions refers to gas guns and not explosives. However if you want to delve into that area, explosives, the law would still apply given the requirements.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
Pretty sad you need to explain that, the justification for this shooting is poor .

Looks like X will need some back up to convince us civilians it was a good shoot.


I dont need to. The jury, who found the officer not guilty, already took care of that. Given the issues recently in Australia and your law enforcement maybe you should stick to your own home country problems before weighing in on ours while acting as if Australia law enforcement is the end all be all to law enforcement on the planet.











No our cops do not blatantly kill people like this maniac did,that was a disgrace and you trying to justify is pitiful. You can claim it was a lawful shoot all you like, however it doesn't make it so.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

The law and jury verdict make the shooting lawful.

Yes Australian police come under the same problems American cops do when it comes to the use of deadly force and they come under attack by the very same people - those who dont know the law or the job and who have no formal training in that realm.

Trying to dismiss the problems Australian police have by hiding behind attacking US police is sad and demonstrates a lack of knowledge about your own country.

You can claim it was a bad shoot all you like, demonstrating a severe lack of knowledge on the topic and US laws, however it doesnt make it so.



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join