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: 30
84
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   
This wretched cop HAS NO RIGHT to murder someone if they don’t follow everything he says.

That’s NOT a capital offense

This poor man probably was so in shock, so afraid he might not have even heard all of what this barbarian cop was saying.




posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel



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.



So you're upset that the prosecutor made their case and the defense made their case?

Oh, okay.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Even if the guy did have a gun…well well #in well.
This country has got guns coming out of peoples assess

Big #


This stupid murderer didn’t Have to scream like a savage at this man over a gun when the country has over 300 million guns

edit on 11-12-2017 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

So, "no," then?

Being on a jury does not give one the understanding needed to fully grasp everything about the judicial system. Hell, I was directly in the trenches for years, and now I'm indirectly in the trenches but still deal directly with federal cases as my day job, and I don't fully understand everything about the judicial system.

However, I have the ability to appropriately research the cases and charges and processes, so I'm not approaching this topic because I want to seem contradictory or because I think that it's fun to argue for the sake of arguing. I'm trying to help people understand that, even though this type of thing can be infuriating, it doesn't mean that the verdict is wrong.

Disappointingly, though, it falls on deaf ears more often than not, and elicits juvenile name calling and appeals to emotion that cloud one's judgment on these issues (I'm not saying you fall in this category, it's just a generalized observation).

With that said, I have a question for you: What do you consider to have been poorly handled that has not been discussed by "some people" in this thread? I know that, at the least, Shamrock6 and I have discussed how the verbal commands could very easily have been better dictated, and that had they been, the shooting may not have occurred.

But again, that's dealing in 20/20 hindsight and hypotheticals, so they don't really merit discussion as far as the acquittal in this case.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell


This stupid murderer didn’t Have to scream like a savage at this man over a gun when the country has over 300 million guns


He didn't, but don't let facts play into your emotional response at all.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
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.

Makes no difference to me.

I was just pointing out that the cops were going even if he had or hadn't broken the law, which makes it a moot point unless you are arguing that breaking that law was punishable by death, which would be pretty out there. Of course, that isn't actually why he died but that is how that argument is made to look.


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.

Subjective to the person discussing it here on the forum.

Ironically, there seems to be a problem with understanding what is actually being said.



edit on 11-12-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Somebody screaming at you like a madman with a high powered gun


That alone to me convicts him of manslaughter, at least


The poor guy was in shock...listening to that mad dog cop. Hes the one who was a danger to society not that poor guy murdered.

Your stupid laws give cops too much power and leeway in situations like this.


If I am a government worker and I ride around in a government car recklessly, and kill somebody I AM GUILTY of something


This cop was reckless to a citizen

They have no right to abuse citizens like that. They get that right when they ALWAYS are acquitted



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Then what was I watching and hearing cartoons?


If everything he did was so correct then why did the fire him

Why did they indict him?

edit on 11-12-2017 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
This wretched cop HAS NO RIGHT to murder someone if they don’t follow everything he says.

That’s NOT a capital offense


He was shot because of the threatening action that he chose to make after being told that if he did it again, he would be shot...he wasn't shot because he didn't obey words, it was because he was making threatening movements.


This poor man probably was so in shock, so afraid he might not have even heard all of what this barbarian cop was saying.

Well, all of his actions show otherwise, because he even switched his foot from right-over-left to left-over-right per the LEO's instructions, raised his arms when told to, got on his knees when told to, stopped when told to, etc.

I agree that the way that the officer was screaming probably rattled his cage quite a bit, but there's no reason to believe that he couldn't understand the officer's instructions/commands/screams.


originally posted by: Willtell
Even if the guy did have a gun…well well #in well.
This country has got guns coming out of peoples assess

Big #

So, the total number of guns in a country renders them less of a threat? Does your use of profanity mean that we should take you more seriously than if you spoke like a mature individual?



This stupid murderer didn’t Have to scream like a savage at this man over a gun when the country has over 300 million guns

Have you even looked into this case past the OP?
    A. The officer screaming orders is not the one who was charged with and acquitted of 2nd-degree murder

    B. He isn't a murderer--that's your emotional opinion, not reality

    C. Again, the number of guns in a country does not render them less potentially lethal.

 


This thread has gone off of the deep end.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Shamrock6

Then what was I watching and hearing cartoons?


If everything he did was so correct then why did the fire him

Why did they indict him?


I don't know what you watched, because in this incident the cop shooting and the cop yelling are two different cops.

Like I said, don't let the facts color your emotions at all



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Somebody screaming at you like a madman with a high powered gun


That alone to me convicts him of manslaughter, at least

And that's why your ability to constructively think concerning this incident is underwhelming.

Again, the officer screaming the commands is not the same as who fired the shots and was acquitted of 2nd-degree murder.




The poor guy was in shock...listening to that mad dog cop. Hes the one who was a danger to society not that poor guy murdered.

Well, the officer who was screaming the orders is no longer a cop, so there's that.


Your stupid laws give cops too much power and leeway in situations like this.

Not my laws--I'm not a legislator, nor do I live in Arizona.



If I am a government worker and I ride around in a government car recklessly, and kill somebody I AM GUILTY of something

Yeah, probably reckless homicide...even if you're not a government worker or in a government car.



This cop was reckless to a citizen

No, he wasn't. He was doing his job, and Mr. Shaver, for who knows what reason, decided twice to reach for his waistband/small of his back. Anyone capable of watching anything higher than a PG-rated movie understands that this is considered to be a threatening, potentially deadly action--especially when that individual doing the action was reported as aiming a rifle out of his window and aiming at a highway.


They have no right to abuse citizens like that. They get that right when they ALWAYS are acquitted

If you say so. Like I've already noted, your obvious lack of comprehension of "my laws" and how the judicial system works is readily apparent. Might I suggest looking up some sources and getting the full picture, to include the elements of the law, and then looking at this with unbiased eyes?

If you're unwilling, this discussion is pointless.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

SO WHAT

That cop HAS NO RIGHT threatening citizens


He should have calmly watched the scene rather than screaming like a lunatic. He was the one out of control


The poor guy was probably pissing in his pants with fear


Again, IF he did everything right, why fire him, why indict him.

Juries, imo, are just brainwashed to give cops to much leeway--THEY NEVER CONVICT THEM unless its on camera and even then they often let them go

edit on 11-12-2017 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




If you say so. Like I've already noted, your obvious lack of comprehension of "my laws" and how the judicial system works is readily apparent. Might I suggest looking up some sources and getting the full picture, to include the elements of the law, and then looking at this with unbiased eyes?



My friend, it was lawyers who indicted him, right, prosecutors.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
Makes no difference to me.

And that's a problem, when you fail to take into account the entirety of the situation.


I was just pointing out that the cops were going even if he had or hadn't broken the law, which makes it a moot point unless you are arguing that breaking that law was punishable by death, which would be pretty out there. Of course, that isn't actually why he died but that is how that argument is made to look.


And that's an argument not worth discussing because it holds zero merit.


Subjective to the person discussing it here on the forum.

Ironically, there seems to be a problem with understanding what is actually being said.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your approach, but I was only responding directly to your one comment, so if something is misinterpreted, you'll have to excuse me.

I guess expanding on what you meant isn't worth the time?

And regardless, what I said about subjectivity is valid, even if it was an inappropriate response to what you meant.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: roadgravel



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.



So you're upset that the prosecutor made their case and the defense made their case?

Oh, okay.


Why do you say I am upset?

I hate to see these situations end in this way. Given what has been happening for years, I am about at the point where if a cop or criminal gets killed, it's just the way it is. Caring dosen't matter much anymore it seems. Society seems to be OK with the current situation.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Let me ask you something. You claim to know the law…


Why do prosecutors refer to people before their indictment as defendants?

Is that a colloquial term or a legal term?



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: SlapMonkey

SO WHAT

That cop HAS NO RIGHT threatening citizens

Yes, actually, he does have the right--and authority--to tell a suspect exactly what he told Mr. Shavers.



He should have calmly watched the scene rather than screaming like a lunatic. He was the one out of control

I already agreed that the officer in command was acting to a point where it probably caused more problems than it solved, but "calmly watch[ing] the scene" as a response to this type of a 911 call shows that you don't know what you're talking about.



The poor guy was probably pissing in his pants with fear

Maybe...but that has no bearing on the murder trial. This is that whole appeal-to-emotion argument that keep rearing its ugly head.



Again, IF he did everything right, why fire him, why indict him.

Lots of reason, but none that I think you'll agree with, so what's the point? If you really want an answer, I've discussed this on some other page in this thread yesterday, but I'm not going to regurgitate it to you.

The bottom line, though, is that he didn't get fired for the shooting, he got fired for other little things, including the arrest concerning a charge on which he was found not guilty. You probably see that as some sort of justice...


Juries, imo, are just brainwashed to give cops to much leeway--THEY NEVER CONVICT THEM unless its on camera and even then they often let them go

Then you've never heard a judge read jury instructions to the jury, have you?

(I already know the answer)
edit on 11-12-2017 by SlapMonkey because: forgot to close a bracket



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
And that's a problem, when you fail to take into account the entirety of the situation.

That part of the situation is moot.


And that's an argument not worth discussing because it holds zero merit.

Yet, here we are discussing how the air rifle was handled.


Maybe I am misunderstanding your approach, but I was only responding directly to your one comment, so if something is misinterpreted, you'll have to excuse me.

I guess expanding on what you meant isn't worth the time?

And regardless, what I said about subjectivity is valid, even if it was an inappropriate response to what you meant.

No problem but I thought it was pretty clear. People discussing this do so subjectively.

I didn't say anything about the subjectivity of anything in the video or what led up to that situation.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Why do prosecutors refer to people before their indictment as defendants?

It's an official term within the court system, used in court records, transcripts, and the like in order to identify the individual.

The term means that the person is defending themselves against charges brought against them.

As far as calling someone a defendant prior to indictment--that's just a loose thing that people do. They're also considered "suspects," too. I'm not sure what you're looking for out of that, but technically speaking, there is no "defendant" proper until they have been indicted on charges.

When I used to type up charge sheets, the block for the suspect's name was labeled "defendant," even before charges were proffered to the convening authority (during my days as a military paralegal)--It's for the records after the fact, but until charges were read to the suspect, they weren't technically a "defendant."

The same goes for the civilian side of things as well--you're not a "defendant," technically, until you've been indicted, which is often the result of a Grand Jury investigation.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: roadgravel



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.



So you're upset that the prosecutor made their case and the defense made their case?

Oh, okay.


Why do you say I am upset?

I hate to see these situations end in this way. Given what has been happening for years, I am about at the point where if a cop or criminal gets killed, it's just the way it is. Caring dosen't matter much anymore it seems. Society seems to be OK with the current situation.



You stated you believe Brailsford should've been given the death penalty. That's not really a response somebody who's not upset by an acquittal would give. Now you're going on about some perceived emotional state of the jury for...what reason? I don't know, other than looking for some reason other than "it wasn't murder" to pin the acquittal on.



new topics




 
84
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join