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

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Where the law supports injustice, it is not valid.

And where you subjective opinion finds injustice is not always so.

Laws exist in the realm of absolutes for a reason--sometimes unjust things happen that are legal, and other times, illegal things happen that are just.

Show me a perfect legal system, and I'll show you a perpetual-motion machine that I just invented.

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?

It's not, and I've never made such an argument.

If it was legal for the homeless to be beaten to death if they ask for help, would you support that?

It's not, and I've never made such an argument.

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?

See, this is your problem in a nutshell: You seem to think that because I talk about the law that it must mean that I agree with every law. If you can overcome this shortcoming in your thinking, we could probably have a decent discussion, but instead of using reality as a starting block for a discussion, you want to you hypotheticals and ask people to speak on behalf of long-dead individuals.

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.

Actually, laws are generally used as a deterrent to commit crime in order to maintain civil order in a society. The justice system (hence the name) is what exists to determine justice. You're conflating the legislative with the judicial, and that's not how things work.

But like I said, if you can find it in yourself to jettison the idea that those of us who speak about law and its elements and applicability are automatically fanboys of said laws, maybe we could get somewhere in discussion, but if all that you want to do is throw out subjective opinions, hypotheticals, and (what I see as) ridiculous questions, then this discussion has reached its dead end.

But I ask you, TrueBrit, do ponder a couple questions before you respond (if you do): Does one's own individual actions, on both sides of the gun, during such an encounter in the OP hold any relevance to your consideration of "just" and "appropriate" actions? Where does personal responsibility of the suspect's own movements and actions come into play when you decide to call people cowards and preach about their actions?

originally posted by: roadgravel
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.

So, are you passively trying to tell me that the elements of the charges, the evidence in the video (not to mention all of the courtroom evidence not on display in this thread), the deliberation of the jury, the verdict of the jury, and the judge accepting the not-guilty verdict all have it wrong, and that we should hang our conclusion of this incident on the fact that, in relatively small percentages, juries get it wrong?

I know more than most how juries don't get it right every time, and how seemingly easily proven elements don't make it past their deliberations, but I'll tell ya, it's very, very rare, and in a murder case where the jury only deliberated for six hours and came back with a not-guilty verdict, that should tell you that, in this case, the results reflect the law quite well.

I'm not trying to force anyone to accept the outcome as "just," I'm just here to say that, in accordance with how the laws are written, the verdict is appropriate.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Ah, i understand now, you also play out scenarios in your head where you are justified to kill people.

No, actually--state legislators what homicides are justified and are not, but as a CCDW permit holder and carrier of a firearm, I'm intelligent enough to understand how the laws pertain to me.

Neat concept, that whole understanding-the-law thing, isn't it?

a reply to: TrueBrit

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

Generally when it comes to trying to have a conversation with you, you're going to "take it" however you want to take it, regardless of what I have to say. Given that I'm not a prophet, I'm reluctant to give you an answer as to how I'd handle every situation I may encounter in life.

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

My life is worth no more, but certainly no less, than anybody else's life. Certainly not to you, anyway. I suspect my folks and kids might have a different opinion.

But my life is worth a whole hell of a lot more than your opinion is

It was not murder in the eyes of 12 people.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Ask them what would have happened if this had not been a cop and been a citizen with a concealed carry who shot this unarmed guy. Do you think the regular smo joe citizen could have got away with I feared he had a gun? LMAO

Ill tell you what would have happened. A murder charge or some sort of manslaughter charge.

The cops are above the laws of the average citizen. Thats what the boot lickers wont tell you.

Kinda Ironic when I took my concealed carry class the instructor told us not to put anything flashy or any type of engraving on our carry guns. If we did have to shoot someone that may be used against us.

Yet here we have a officer above the law doing what a average law abiding citizen would be charged for.

The guys defending this do not have a issue with it because they fall into one of 4 categorys

1 They are in the LE field OR WERE in the LE field and are power trippers themselves.
2 Have a relative/friend in the above
3 Bootlickers
4 People who want it to be easy to get off killing someone in case they get their shot

Not to worry a majority of LE ive seen on facebook in the comments of this story did not agree with the shooting. A majority of veterans commenting didn't either. So these slum are in the minority.

Dont argue with coward boot lickers its a waste of time.

And most of them want it to be that easy to shoot someone and get away with it. BECAUSE they are indeed dreaming of their time to do it and it being easy to get off of.


This coming from a Trump supporter who usually detests your comments! HAH

a reply to: robynd0623

I'm sure an average every day citizen would've been in all kinds of trouble for taking it upon him or her self to go try to make contact with a guy reportedly waving a gun out of his hotel window and then forcing the man out of his hotel room and holding him at gunpoint.

No need to ask TB to ask "them" (this isn't grade school, you can ask people questions yourself; no need to pass notes in class) how much trouble a non-sworn person would be for acting like a cop.

a reply to: Shamrock6

So which category do you fall into?

a reply to: robynd0623

The one you left off your list: the category of people who've demonstrated a knowledge of the law, and why the prosecutor was unable to get a conviction for the charge they pursued because of relevant case law, and have made it perfectly clear that they believe the situation was handled poorly and that the shooting didn't need to happen.

Probably gonna want to pay attention to what people say before you start trying to pigeon hole them.

a reply to: vonclod

originally posted by: daskakik
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.

Yeah my bad. Arizona state law doesnt address pellet or bb guns however city codes address the issue, including Mesa's

In Mesa it is unlawful to use a bb gun / pellet gun within city parks.
In Mesa it is unlawful to discharge a BB gun / Pellet gun within city limits.

MCC - Title 6 Chapter 1

6-1-15: WEAPONS:
It shall be a misdemeanor for any person to negligently or purposely discharge any firearm, BB gun, or slingshot within the corporate limits, except: (394,1635)
(A) In necessary self-defense. (394,1635)
(B) A law enforcement officer in necessary performance of his duty. (394,1635)
(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. (394,1635)
(D) Target shooting on private premises with air or CO2-operated BB or pellet guns or slingshots, providing: (394,1635)
1. The target area is enclosed in such manner and with materials that will stop the projectiles. (394,1635)
2. Such target shooting is supervised by an adult at all times. (394,1635)

3. Any safety precautions recommended by the Police Chief are complied with. (394,1635)
(E) In an area recommended as a hunting area by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission and approved by the Police Chief. Such area must be posted as required by the Police Chief and may be closed at any time by the Police Chief or the Director of the Game Department. (394,1635)
(F) Where a permit is issued by the Police Chief. (394,1635)
(G) In defense of property from damage by animals or birds, providing the property owner obtains a permit from the Arizona Game Department or U.S. 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. (394,1635)
(H) Definition. For the purpose of this Section, a firearm is defined as any device that expels a projectile or projectiles by means of expanding gases. (394,1635)

Again it was not discovered they were bb/ pellet guns until after the fact. It is treated as a firearm.

a reply to: Xcathdra

n Mesa it is unlawful to use a bb gun / pellet gun within city parks. In Mesa it is unlawful to discharge a BB gun / Pellet gun within city limits.

He did not use it or discharge it. Tell me again what laws he broke??

a reply to: Xcathdra

Again it was not discovered they were bb/ pellet guns until after the fact. It is treated as a firearm.

But they did know before hand he had a rifle right? Pretty effing obvious that guy was not gonna pull a rifle with a scope out of his waist band.

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: Xcathdra

Again it was not discovered they were bb/ pellet guns until after the fact. It is treated as a firearm.

But they did know before hand he had a rifle right? Pretty effing obvious that guy was not gonna pull a rifle with a scope out of his waist band.

The report was a person waving a gun around at a hotel so it will be treated as such until discovered otherwise. I dont believe the reporting party said what the weapon was and just reported it as a gun.

and yes a long gun can be concealed on a persons body and I linked to a video several pages back demonstrating that fact.

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: Xcathdra

n Mesa it is unlawful to use a bb gun / pellet gun within city parks. In Mesa it is unlawful to discharge a BB gun / Pellet gun within city limits.

He did not use it or discharge it. Tell me again what laws he broke??

Waving it around in a manner that gained the attention of the public at large. If I am not mistaken the suspect was also intoxicated.

Both of which are violations.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I dont believe the reporting party said what the weapon was and just reported it as a gun

So you dont know ? If you are a cop and you think this is justified please do the public a favor and retire.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: Xcathdra

n Mesa it is unlawful to use a bb gun / pellet gun within city parks. In Mesa it is unlawful to discharge a BB gun / Pellet gun within city limits.

He did not use it or discharge it. Tell me again what laws he broke??

Waving it around in a manner that gained the attention of the public at large. If I am not mistaken the suspect was also intoxicated.


Both of which are violations.

. Please retire before you shoot an innocent man because you are a scared little girly man.

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: Xcathdra

n Mesa it is unlawful to use a bb gun / pellet gun within city parks. In Mesa it is unlawful to discharge a BB gun / Pellet gun within city limits.

He did not use it or discharge it. Tell me again what laws he broke??

Waving it around in a manner that gained the attention of the public at large. If I am not mistaken the suspect was also intoxicated.


Both of which are violations.

Man you are an idiot. Please retire before you shoot an innocent man because you are scared little pussy.

Oh boy, now it's a good debate. No relevant points to make so we move in to the personal attacks and name calling.

#winning

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: Xcathdra

n Mesa it is unlawful to use a bb gun / pellet gun within city parks. In Mesa it is unlawful to discharge a BB gun / Pellet gun within city limits.

He did not use it or discharge it. Tell me again what laws he broke??

Waving it around in a manner that gained the attention of the public at large. If I am not mistaken the suspect was also intoxicated.


Both of which are violations.

Man you are an idiot. Please retire before you shoot an innocent man because you are scared little pussy.

Oh boy, now it's a good debate. No relevant points to make so we move in to the personal attacks and name calling.

#winning

Wasnt talking to you Sham..

a reply to: notsure1

And yet, the point remains

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: Xcathdra

n Mesa it is unlawful to use a bb gun / pellet gun within city parks. In Mesa it is unlawful to discharge a BB gun / Pellet gun within city limits.

He did not use it or discharge it. Tell me again what laws he broke??

Waving it around in a manner that gained the attention of the public at large. If I am not mistaken the suspect was also intoxicated.


Both of which are violations.

Man you are an idiot. Please retire before you shoot an innocent man because you are scared little pussy.

Oh boy, now it's a good debate. No relevant points to make so we move in to the personal attacks and name calling.

#winning

Wasnt talking to you Sham..

You cant debate with an idiot .. And only an idiot thinks this was a good shoot.