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

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

It might be lawful, seemingly it was according to the jury.. but it's not right.
I think the law gives the police too much latitude.

a reply to: vonclod

The law is in this case is blind, the law has to protect itself, so lawyers and judges turn a blind eye to some things as these same cops are protecting them from the public.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Ok, thank's for the info, here in Canukistan there is no distinction between the calibers, or whether it's a pump or CO2..it's a strictly a matter of velocity.

Actually seems you may be mistaken?.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No cops here rarely shoot people, maybe you should look at those numbers again.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I don't disagree.

Sadly this whole thing could of been handled much better..with the legalities, the humanity is lost, I get it cops want to go home..so does Joe Citizen. In my opinion Joe Citizen gets lost in all this technical bullsh#t.

a reply to: vonclod

Exactly ,average Joe seems to have no rights what's so ever. What worries me is that incidents like this one only lead to backlash, if this keeps up and the cops keep getting away with it there will be blowback that makes the Rodney King incident seem mild in comparison.

a reply to: Xcathdra

And as I said, you bring the others.

The department said it was because of that and I'm sure they have a better understanding than you.

a reply to: Xcathdra

According to the info here co2 and air guns are not regulated in arizona even if you can interpret the law that way.

a reply to: daskakik

That's what I thought it would be

I'm unclear though if they are, or not classified as a firearm? ..sounds like they are not.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: notsure1,

That is one of the most gut wrenching things I've ever seen.

The killing of David Kassick by lisa mearkle is a good comparison. The woman cop who shot him has the same horrendous pig squeal tones, as she became hysterical and then unloaded bullets into Dave’s back just to allay her worries that she may be in danger. You can hear back up sirens in the background. I guess she wanted full cred for the kill. Her excuse is that he was hiding his hands, aka, clutching his chest, while being electrocuted by repeat taser jolts. This one is equally sickening.

thefreethoughtproject.com...

another heart breaker is the slaying of Jason Conoscenti, by the long beach chapter police gang. They even used naval vessels in the firing squad, in case he tried to swim away. Jason reportedly stole something at the local Target. Gang members swore under oath that Jason was carrying a rifle or something resembling one. Video proved the cops are liars. Not easy to watch these examples of tyranny in action. Jason was riddled with bullets, gushing blood onto the beach as cops booted his back and handcuffed his corpse. Dozens of shots, all he did was walk away after ignoring cops that had followed him to the beach. He parked his car perfectly. You never hear of Jason because Jason was caucasian.

# 918

originally posted by: vonclod
I'm unclear though if they are, or not classified as a firearm? ..sounds like they are not.

I think that they technically are but since they are not regulated and it seems like the state of arizona leaves it up to the local government (city,municipal, etc.) to regulate their use.

For example in Scottsdale:

Sec. 19-7. - Discharge of weapons.
(a) No person shall, within the city limits, fire or discharge any firearm, including but not limited to an air gun, BB gun, pellet gun, dart gun, gas operated gun or other similar gun or instrument. This section does not apply to the use of any such gun or instrument by:
(1) A law enforcement officer or other duly authorized public official or employee in the performance of any official duty.
(2) Licensed shooting galleries.
(3) Any person to whom a license, permit or authority is issued by the chief of police for the use of such gun or instrument for a valid and proper purpose and for use in a manner not likely to harm any person, animal or property.
(4) Any person when used only for the necessary protection of property, habitation, or person in a manner authorized by the laws of the state or under or within rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the state or of the United States.

This is odd because they don't even mention guns using gunpowder.

While in Phoenix:

Sec. 23-42. - Discharging firearms, BB guns and slung shots prohibited; exceptions.

It shall be a misdemeanor for any person to negligently or purposely discharge any firearm, BB gun or slung shot within the City, except:

(a) In necessary self defense.

(b) A law enforcement officer in necessary performance of his duty.

(c) For the purpose of target shooting or practice on a range operated by qualified personnel. Qualified personnel shall consist of either a certified firearms safety instructor, rifle or pistol marksmanship instructor certified by the National Rifle Association, or person designated by a rifle or pistol club, public or private school or military agency.

(d) For the purpose of target shooting on private premises with air, spring or CO2 operated BB, pellet guns or slingshots, providing:

(1) The target area is enclosed in such manner and with materials that will stop the projectiles.

(2) Such target shooting is supervised by an adult at all times.

(3) Any safety precautions recommended by the Chief of Police are complied with.

(e) In an area recommended as a hunting area by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission and approved by the Chief of Police. Such area must be posted as required by the Chief of Police and may be closed at any time by the Chief of Police or the Director of the Game Department.

(f) Where a permit is issued by the Chief of Police.

(g) In defense of property from damage by animals or birds, providing property owner obtains permit from Arizona Game Department or United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the taking of such animals or birds is properly supervised by the Game Department or the Fish and Wildlife Service or a person designated by either of those agencies to assure the safety of surrounding property owners.

This is odd because they even include slingshots.

So it seems like it all hinges on firing the weapon and not just having it and, of course, in the case at hand, there is no mention of any rifle being fired.

The sad part of this story is that if the couple had remained in the room another 10 seconds then Shaver would not have dropped in front of the door, he would not have been instructed to crawl and he would not have reached for his falling shorts. What a difference a few seconds makes.

a reply to: daskakik

I actually thought about slingshots as well, being something that can cause injury by launching a projectile.
I thought I might of read something relating to 700 fps being some threshold, might not of been Arizona though.

The sad part of this story is that if the couple had remained in the room another 10 seconds then Shaver would not have dropped in front of the door, he would not have been instructed to crawl and he would not have reached for his falling shorts. What a difference a few seconds makes.

Indeed, timing is everything..it only takes a second to change everything.

a reply to: TheWhiteKnight

You never hear of Jason because Jason was caucasian. 

Because folks like to sit by the sideline s, not saying a damn thing, decades of this kind of abuse hit minority communities, while much of the majority community remained incredulous,silent or worst , mocking the dead by calling them Dinduz, I say it again, don't wait till black folks start raising hell, get off your asses and let it be known YOU WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS CRAP ANY LONGER.

a reply to: UKTruth

Absolute bunkum.

Being an enforcer of law, if it does not mean being prepared to take risks considered absurd by the rest of the population, in order to enforce law and protect the innocent, means NOTHING. It is PRECISELY the job of the police force of any given region, in any given land, to take the risks that others will not, in order to promote law, order and justice, and counter lawlessness, disorder and injustice, and those risks automatically include the possibility of ones life being taken in the process.

Those unwilling to accept those terms should not be applying for the job in the first place, since they clearly have no understanding of the enormity of the task at hand, and thats before we even get to the fact that a person who is less willing to die themselves, than they are to shoot an innocent person, should not be employed in that role.

Making an arrest of any kind, in any situation, is a risk which many regular citizens would find themselves unwilling to take, and yet, officers know it is their duty to take it. Performing traffic stops is a risk most citizens would not be able to bring themselves to take, and yet officers understand it is in their remit. Where a regular person might not take the risk of getting shot in order to make certain that they do not kill an innocent in a misunderstanding, an officer, MUST be prepared to take that risk, because it is their duty to risk their lives to uphold law, to uphold justice and order, and where an officer can see their way to taking a life through their own fear, rather than waiting to be certain of a threat before acting against it, there is no law, there is no order or justice.

It IS that simple.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: SlapMonkey

So you support acts of cowardice?

No, I don't, but I also don't support keyboard lawyers who think that they understand American law who don't even have a job in the legal field, never have, and don't even live in the United States.

Your definition of "cowardice," however, isn't a reflection on what happened--it's an opinion that you came to from (apparent) minimal understanding of this situation, the law, and how one acts in a situation like this.

Let me explain something to you. No gun was pulled on those officers.

Irrelevant to the law.

No gun was found to be on the body once the man had been shot.

More irrelevancy to the law.

If the man was shot, in that scenario, the only way that can of happened, is if the officer was more prepared to kill an innocent person, than they were to die themselves. That makes them walking dirt, not fit to perform the duties of a law enforcer.

Again, more opinion and evidence of a supreme lack of understanding on how these things work. However, I would LOVE to have you explain how, in this situation, you would know at that time that this guy was an unarmed, innocent person. I mean, I suppose you could cite the innocent-until-proven-guilty legal approach, but that's a stretch at that moment in time with the information that they had.

But, I know...disregard that and just repeat "no gun" over and over, right?

I don't give a rat's ass about opinions on this matter, I have only been arguing and caring about how the law applies to the acts that occurred. If you want to keep appealing to emotion, or playing the game of sounding logical while note being so, you can do that. You have explained nothing; you have a consistent disdain and, dare I say, hatred for law enforcement officers in America. You have an exceptionally difficult time separating "the feels" from the facts as it pertains to the laws that govern the situation, and then pretend that you want to explain things to other people as if you're an authority on the subject.

Nice try. Your inability/unwillingness to take the entirety of the situation into account, along with your persisting need to cherry pick just one or two parts of the whole situation reflect poorly on your ability to comprehend this in an appropriate way.

I would hope that there's not one person in this thread that applauds the death of Mr. Shaver, but that doesn't mean that the tragedy of his death is murder or a result of cowardice. I don't applaud his death, and like I've said a few times already in this thread, the screaming nature of the officer handling communication probably escalated the incident to the point of Mr. Shaver being shot five times whereas he may otherwise not have been, but unlike you and others in this thread, I'm not going to sit here and claim that the combination of 20/20 hindsight and armchair quarterbacking means that this was murder.

The law says differently. The jury has shown that. The judge agrees.

Your opinion in objection to this is irrelevant to reality.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Where the law supports injustice, it is not valid.

If it was legal to gun down protestors in the street, rather than see to their safety and protect their right to protest, would you support that? If it was legal for the homeless to be beaten to death if they ask for help, would you support that? Would you stand by those who engaged in the practice? Would you argue the toss about the technicalities, despite the injustice inherent in the actions so described?

What is lawful is not nearly as important as what is JUST, and nothing JUST occurred in this case what so ever. It was UNJUST for the officer to shoot the victim. The lawfulness of the matter only indicates how unjust the law is. Law should be there to uphold justice, because justice is important. Law is not. It is subservient to the needs of justice, otherwise it invalidates itself.

a reply to: TrueBrit

It's law enforcement's job to take risks that you're not willing to take.

It's not law enforcement's job to put themselves at a disadvantage so that others can (maybe) have one less thing to second guess them about.

It's all well and good to pontificate about things like this from the safety of a computer chair, and thankfully you're more than happy to do so. The reality, both from a position of the law and on the street, is another matter.

The law says differently. The jury has shown that. The judge agrees.

Sometimes juries make a decision based on emotion. People have been locked away on small amounts of circumstantial evidence only to be proven innocent.

It's the way the system can work but doesn't mean it is right with reality every time.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: jacobe001

I'd rather judge incidents from the position of law, rather than the position of opinions and feelings.

I'm just now playing catch-up in this thread--it seems that this approach is still the opposite to the preferred one.

Why is it so difficult for many people to understand that it's okay to be bothered by, upset over, and angry with some aspects of this situation, but still understand that it was not murder in the eyes of the law? (oh, and that this doesn't make one a fascist, or sociopath, or any other ad hominem that has been thrown out in this thread...)

a reply to: Shamrock6

I take it you would not be willing to ensure their was an actual threat, before responding to one then?

If so, what makes you think your life is worth enough, that you are willing to endanger an unarmed person to defend it?