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

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.

13-2904. Disorderly conduct; classification

A. A person commits disorderly conduct if, with intent to disturb the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family or person, or with knowledge of doing so, such person:

1. Engages in fighting, violent or seriously disruptive behavior; or

2. Makes unreasonable noise; or

3. Uses abusive or offensive language or gestures to any person present in a manner likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation by such person; or

4. Makes any protracted commotion, utterance or display with the intent to prevent the transaction of the business of a lawful meeting, gathering or procession; or

5. Refuses to obey a lawful order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, a hazard or any other emergency; or

6. Recklessly handles, displays or discharges a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

B. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 6 is a class 6 felony. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 is a class 1 misdemeanor.

From op source -

A total of six Mesa police officers had responded to a call about a man pointing a rifle out of a La Quinta Hotel fifth-floor window and were waiting outside Shaver's fifth-floor room. Police would later find two pellet guns in Shaver's room, which he used as a pest control worker. Shaver, who lived in Texas, had been in Mesa working for his father-in-law's company.

So it was a "rifle" and he was pointing it out a hotel window.

and?

It was illegal regardless.

originally posted by: notsure1

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.

Make sure you let the jurors know. Although since they got the entire story and you did not you may want to rethink that.

and yes, it was a good shoot.

However given the fact you are also law enforcement you should understand what happened.

originally posted by: Xcathdra



Make sure you let the jurors know.

We will along with OJs, Casey Anthonys, and Kate Steinles juror's.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: notsure1

And yet, the point remains

There I edited it out.. Cops like him who just defend the cop no matter what are the reason nothing ever changes.

The unions bail them out of jail in an hour, give them the best lawyers and the worst prosecutors ,somehow convince a jury that the cop had reason to fear for his life..

Why? Because someone called and said a guy had a gun. I mean this is America everybody has a gun he did not shoot it he did not threaten anyone with it he did not point it at anyone.

OMG a guy has a gun in the USA lets call swat.

a reply to: notsure1

If your going to defend your point maybe you should get the facts correct?

He was pointing it / waving it outside the window of the hotel. Given what occurred in Las Vegas recently I cant for the life of me understand why someone called the police and why 5 officers responded to the scene.

Care to shed some light on that fact for us? Maybe explain why you left that out of your argument?

As i said with your background as a law enforcement officer you should understand.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Given what occurred in Las Vegas recently I cant for the life of me understand why someone called the police and why 5 officers responded to the scene.

This far into the thread and you dont even know this was 2 years ago?

Are you kidding me? LMAO?????

a reply to: notsure1

2016 was 2 years ago?

ooook...

You either missed my point or your just deflecting from it.

You want me to list other mass shootings that occurred before this incident? The point still stands.

Or are you saying a guy waving a gun around outside a hotel window is normal and ok and the public / law enforcement should have no concerns?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Man stop back peddling it is obvious you are here to defend no matter what..

You dont know any facts of the case yet you keep talking about facts.

It is fun to expose the moron in you.

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: Xcathdra

Man stop back peddling it is obvious you are here to defend no matter what..

You dont know any facts of the case yet you keep talking about facts.

It is fun to expose the moron in you.

Right... Not back peddling on anything so you should stop deflecting by resorting to childish behavior.

The cop was found not guilty.
The suspect broke the law by his actions.
The suspect died because of his actions.

What part confuses you?

a reply to: notsure1

Why? Because someone called and said a guy had a gun. I mean this is America everybody has a gun he did not shoot it he did not threaten anyone with it he did not point it at anyone.

Whatever he did with it was enough to cause two people to leave the pool and contact hotel management about his behavior.

somehow convince a jury that the cop had reason to fear for his life..

That's an "argument" I've never understood. I can understand it when a prosecutor does what seems to be a poor job of making their case, but when it's pretty evident that the prosecutor was swinging for the fences and a jury still acquits an officer, somehow that's the union's fault? The cop's fault? How does that even make sense?

Like it or not, Slap has a pretty incontrovertible point: when a jury deliberates for less than six hours and returns an acquittal in a murder trial, that speaks volumes about the strength of the case.

returns an acquittal in a murder trial, that speaks volumes about the strength of the case.

or the emotional state of the jury.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The suspect broke the law by his actions.

Not necessarily. Other articles say that the people in the pool or hot tub (also depending on version) saw him handling the rifle through a window.

The suspect died because of his actions.

Technically, it was because of the actions of the shooter.

I guess you guys are arguing if that action was justified. That is subjective and your appeal to authority is a fallacy just like hindsight bias.

originally posted by: roadgravel

returns an acquittal in a murder trial, that speaks volumes about the strength of the case.

or the emotional state of the jury.

Whatever excuse helps ya process it easier.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: roadgravel

returns an acquittal in a murder trial, that speaks volumes about the strength of the case.

or the emotional state of the jury.

Whatever excuse helps ya process it easier.

Really?

You do realize in many cases innocent people are found guilty based on very little evidence. Our system is good but there is room for error going both ways.

I just think the whole situation was handle in a poor manner. Seems some here need to defend the poor handling.

a reply to: roadgravel

Really really. Whenever something happens that people don't like, they come up with a litany of excuses for why it happened. Anything they can cling to becomes their narrative. In this case, it's the idea that the jury was emotionally compromised.

What does the emotional state of the jury have to do with how the situation was poorly handled? Seems like some here like to just make things up and pretend other people have said them so they can pivot the conversation into something more their liking.

I've never claimed our system is perfect, but thanks for the tip I guess.

What does the emotional state of the jury have to do with how the situation was poorly handled?

It's not about the incident, it is about the trial after a person is charged.

Carry on.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I posted this stuff way back in this thread--if Notsure1 really wanted to educate himself, he would already understand this part of the issue.

Sometimes, perpetuating emotional responses is more important than accurately considering the reality of the situation.

a reply to: roadgravel

Or, like I said, the strength of evidence (or lack thereof) during a trial.

Never been a part of the legal system inside a courtroom as your job, have you? I wouldn't expect you to understand how a jury plagued with disagreement deliberates and how long it takes, especially with murder charges.

I've been on juries, so I've been on that part of the inside.

originally posted by: daskakik
Not necessarily. Other articles say that the people in the pool or hot tub (also depending on version) saw him handling the rifle through a window.

He was handling it in the room by the window and then also waving it around at the window and pointing it out of the window at a nearby highway.

Yes, depending on the source, you can only get half of the story, but when you read multiple sources that fully quote witnesses, you get the whole story of the claim.

Also, listening to the 911 call helps, which I did as well. The information that the officers had when they approached the room is that the occupant had a rifle and was waiving it around and aiming it at a highway. That much is obvious and clear...the depending-on-the-article argument only holds up if you haven't read enough sources to get the whole story.

I guess you guys are arguing if that action was justified. That is subjective ...

Nothing is subjective: If a LEO tells you that you will be shot if you reach for your waistband/small of your back one more time, and you take it upon yourself to do exactly that a minute or so after the initial warning, it was YOUR actions that got you shot, technically or otherwise.

Now, whether shooting Mr. Shaver was a necessity is a different matter altogether, but it was justified, and it was not murder.