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: 31
83
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


That part of the situation is moot.


Not really, because the "totality of the circumstances at the time" is the standard used to judge officer involved shootings.

Not information that comes to light a week later. Not information that comes to light months later. Not information that comes to light two minutes later. At the time the shot was taken, what was the totality of the information available to the officer at that moment.

If you're going to start tossing out this "part of the situation" or that "part of the situation" as if they have no bearing on them, there's zero point in a discussion.




posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Not really, because the "totality of the circumstances at the time" is the standard used to judge officer involved shootings.

Maybe in a courtroom but that has come and gone and we were not a part of it.

My point is this: Lets say Shaver had a powder burning rifle and that he had actually shot and killed someone from the hotel window. Cops are called, they storm the room and Shaver is waiting unarmed, face down, arms out.

Would he be shot? Seeing the video I would say no.

So whether Arizona classifies airguns as firearms or if he did or didn't point it out a window, fire it, have a permit or any other potentially broken law wouldn't be the reason he got shot.

He was shot because when instructed to crawl his shorts slipped and in a reflex reaction he reached for the waistband.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Does stating an opinion mean a person is upset? Then if so, every one here is upset about everything discussed.

As others have said, anyone else doing it would face a very high chance of a murder conviction. The situation It's only going to get worse. Society in general is OK with the situation so I'll have to accept it and hopefully keep my distance from it.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

You do understand that "upset" doesn't mean "screaming and crying and gnashing one's teeth" but instead means "disappointed" about something, yes? Unless your advocating for the death penalty isn't a sign of being disappointed in the verdict, in which case my sincere apologies for misunderstanding.


As others have said, anyone else doing it would face a very high chance of a murder conviction. The situation It's only going to get worse. Society in general is OK with the situation so I'll have to accept it and hopefully keep my distance from it.


Don't worry. You have something like a 99.8882% chance of not being shot by a cop, should you have to talk to one at all on any given day. The odds, as they say, are in your favor.

ETA - and yes, if another person did what this ex cop did, they'd likely be in trouble. The justice system tends to take a dim view of people trying to do cops' jobs.
edit on 11-12-2017 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Shamrock6 - and yes, if another person did what this ex cop did, they'd likely be in trouble. The justice system tends to take a dim view of people trying to do cops' jobs.


If I see someone in my yard on MY property at 3 am and go outside and shoot them and say I feared for my life that wouldn't work to well for me if they were unarmed and didnt attack. I had better set aside 50K or so for legal expenses as well.

The I feared for my life doesn't work for civilians when they shoot unarmed non violent people..But it does for cops. Hmmmm
edit on 11-12-2017 by robynd0623 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-12-2017 by robynd0623 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-12-2017 by robynd0623 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6
I feel the officers could have taken him in custody in a different way. Having him follow a list of commands and moving when a times being to not to move it setting him up to fail their expected result.

But that the new way it's done. This won't be the last one of these incidents, I suspect. People are now getting on edge which doesn't help.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   
The more I read the posts the more I cannot help but think that the reason LEO's are like this would be the last 10 years. They have been demoralized, demonized and racially called out by not only the media but entertainment as well as administration.

There are bad cops. Just like there are bad doctors. Bad teachers. Bad firefighters. Bad Accounts. The only difference is that when one of them kill someone their job is not paramount to their defense or reason for shooting someone.

Criminals, and even those who are not hardened criminals, have been conditioned over and over and over to question not comply. To resist not discuss. To stand up and not use reason. It is getting people killed now.

The officers, in hindsight, could have done things differently but based on the climate of the last 10 years they have become waaayyyy to twitchy and with that comes bad decisions and accidental death which is what occurred here.

I still think the officers had already decided to kill someone. They are what you would call bad cops in my mind.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: robynd0623

Shamrock6 - and yes, if another person did what this ex cop did, they'd likely be in trouble. The justice system tends to take a dim view of people trying to do cops' jobs.


If I see someone in my yard on MY property at 3 am and go outside and shoot them and say I feared for my life that wouldn't work to well for me if they were unarmed and didnt attack. I had better set aside 50K or so for legal expenses as well.

The I feared for my life doesn't work for civilians when they shoot unarmed non violent people..But it does for cops. Hmmmm


I mean your scenario is cool and all, but that's not what happened here so....neat? Apples and oranges.

Might wanna get that lengthy hmm checked out.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
It was not murder in the eyes of 12 people.


The y didn’t see the whole video.



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

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: robynd0623

Shamrock6 - and yes, if another person did what this ex cop did, they'd likely be in trouble. The justice system tends to take a dim view of people trying to do cops' jobs.


If I see someone in my yard on MY property at 3 am and go outside and shoot them and say I feared for my life that wouldn't work to well for me if they were unarmed and didnt attack. I had better set aside 50K or so for legal expenses as well.

The I feared for my life doesn't work for civilians when they shoot unarmed non violent people..But it does for cops. Hmmmm


I mean your scenario is cool and all, but that's not what happened here so....neat? Apples and oranges.

Might wanna get that lengthy hmm checked out.


I think he has a point. If a normal everyday Joe used this defense in any kind of altercation (a fight in the yard with a neighbor, an intruder on your property or hell even an intruder trying to pick the lock) could they say he reached for his side and I thought he may possibly have been pulling a weapon and i couldn't wait to see if it actually was a weapon because I would have been shot at close range. When the guy turned out to be unarmed would this fly? i mean the cop is trained in these types situations and the average joe isn't. Seems he would be given more benefit of the doubt on fear for his life and not sure whether or not the person was reaching for a weapon. Not only that but if the guy is an intruder he is actually breaking the law and still he has a right to pull up his pants if they would fall and not have you end his life. if you did end his life I have feeling fear for your life wouldn't fly should he turn out to be unarmed. Not even addressing having him do the hokie pokie and simon says before you are willing to cuff him.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Why did the officer shoot five times?



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: keenmachine

It’s not really a secret that law enforcement is given latitude in how they handle situations they deal with. Nor is it a secret that that latitude isn’t extended in full to a citizen, because a citizen isn’t dealing with situations that law enforcement does.

And that is why “if a regular person” arguments don’t work: a regular person wouldn’t get a phone call from a hotel saying a guy is waving a gun out of his window and be expected to do something about it. Making up a fantasy scenario that’s sort of similar but not really similar is close, but not close enough.

Perhaps where you live you’re required to wait until you see a weapon before a defensive handgun use. Where I live, the state has codified both stand your grand and castle doctrines. So no, you would not be in trouble for shooting an unarmed person who’s broken into your house.



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: robynd0623

robynd0623,

I appreciate your responding in candid fashion.

I think this is really a non-partisan issue. No one, on any side of the political divide, wants police officers to be shooting unarmed people, and not being charged and convicted for murder, when the shoot is not entirely above board.



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 06:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Of course your life is worth more than my opinion, or anyone else's. No one would argue otherwise, given sound mind of course, which is not something one can rely upon in this day and age.

However, if you would put your life in danger to protect a victim of crime, which, as a law enforcement professional, I assume you would, then surely you must understand that there is no difference between inserting yourself between a threat and the person threatened, and making sure that there IS a threat before unleashing lethal force against a person? They are the same instinct, one would do them for the same reasons, not different ones, surely?



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well now, someone is trying to split a titanium hair with a marshmallow knife here. First of all, judges, juries, and lawyers for the prosecution and defence, are all part of the same whole beast. The Judiciary and jury may be separate in terminology to the entity known as "the law" in your understanding, but they are not separate bodies in terms of the fact that they operate as part of the same processing system. As for your comments about

As for this:



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.

I will jettison the idea, when you stop using law to defend the indefensible. If the law is unjust, it does not matter what it says, because justice (which is a concept, not a profession, and is inviolate and pure in its aspect) trumps it in every IMPORTANT respect. Your concern with what is legal makes YOU look like you think the outcome is just, which a fool with no eyes could see is not the case. If you do not want to be misrepresented, you should modulate your communications with the membership, to more accurately reflect your attitude toward the matters at hand.

And another thing...


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?


Personal responsibility? Do you mean in this specific case? Because a person being screamed at by armed persons, clearly willing to kill them for no ACTUAL reason, is under no obligation to behave in a logical or reasonable manner, that needs saying right off, because otherwise we end up in BSville. Unlike the officers involved, civilians are not trained to deal with life or death situations, they are not trained to respond to command under stress, and nor SHOULD they be. Also, the "suspect" (or more properly, the victim), was forced to get on the floor, with his hands up, and crawl forward on his knees. If you can comply with that when your life depends on it, while terrified out of your mind, then bully for you. But 90% of people in that same situation, would have died the same damned way, and the responsibility for THAT lies squarely on the shoulders of the police officer who fired the shots which killed him.



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well now, someone is trying to split a titanium hair with a marshmallow knife here. First of all, judges, juries, and lawyers for the prosecution and defence, are all part of the same whole beast. The Judiciary and jury may be separate in terminology to the entity known as "the law" in your understanding, but they are not separate bodies in terms of the fact that they operate as part of the same processing system.

Actually, I was talking about the different between legislation, law enforcement, and the justice system, all of which are different beasts, but your comment yesterday conflated the two when you said that "law should be there to uphold justice," which is absolutely not correct AND is a subjective opinion.

I'm not splitting hairs, I'm fixing your misrepresentation of the purpose of laws.



I will jettison the idea, when you stop using law to defend the indefensible. If the law is unjust, it does not matter what it says, because justice (which is a concept, not a profession, and is inviolate and pure in its aspect) trumps it in every IMPORTANT respect.

So you can't separate the difference between understanding laws and also finding them unjust. I see...so you're saying that we can not have a decent discussion on the matter, because in your world, it's only black and white. Well, try actually being a part of the justice system as a job (and a semi-passion) and you quickly learn how there are way more than 50 shades of grey between your black and white.


Your concern with what is legal makes YOU look like you think the outcome is just, which a fool with no eyes could see is not the case. If you do not want to be misrepresented, you should modulate your communications with the membership, to more accurately reflect your attitude toward the matters at hand.

Or YOU should stop projecting your incorrect assumptions onto people and then proceed to perpetually defend your misinterpretation as if only you have the correct approach to everything in life, and that we all must bow to everything that you think is appropriate.

I don't care if people misinterpret my intent--what I care about is if they're intelligent enough to alter their approach once I correct them.



Personal responsibility? Do you mean in this specific case?

Yes, I mean specifically in this case.


Because a person being screamed at by armed persons, clearly willing to kill them for no ACTUAL reason, is under no obligation to behave in a logical or reasonable manner, that needs saying right off, because otherwise we end up in BSville.

When someone's life is in jeopardy and their actions are the only thing that can save them, there is no obligation for personal responsibility?

Sir, you're already firmly cemented in BSville.


Unlike the officers involved, civilians are not trained to deal with life or death situations, they are not trained to respond to command under stress, and nor SHOULD they be.

Right, no personal responsibility...I get your stance on that. No one who is not a trained law-enforcement officer should have any rational or instinctual ability for self preservation. I get it--with you, it's always the officer's fault, and the victim does nothing wrong, at all, ever.

Here's where you and I differ--I've had to raise my voice to my three-year-old numerous times in her life, and I've also threatened (gasp!) spankings here and there. Even my three-year-old can respond to commands under stress, so don't give me this asininity surrounding your subjective assessment that people shouldn't be able or need to respond in stressful situations. That's crap of the highest level.


Also, the "suspect" (or more properly, the victim), was forced to get on the floor, with his hands up, and crawl forward on his knees. If you can comply with that when your life depends on it, while terrified out of your mind, then bully for you. But 90% of people in that same situation, would have died the same damned way, and the responsibility for THAT lies squarely on the shoulders of the police officer who fired the shots which killed him.

Nice made-up statistics.

And I'll tell you, I've had a shotgun pointed at me when I was a teenager (by someone threatening bodily harm) and I've been in a house before where a no-knock raid occurred. In both instances, I kept my wits about me and was able to comply with commands and didn't get shot, or even arrested (no one got shot, coincidentally enough). Both times, I was under the influence of either weed and/or alcohol.

So don't sit there and pretend that you know statistics on how people deal with stressful situations when they're fearing for their lives, because there are numerous, nearly innumerable amounts of videos and instances where civilians were held at gunpoint by police officers and handled themselves appropriately.

You can take your appeals to emotion, fake statistics, misinterpretation of me, misunderstanding of laws, inability to differentiate things when appropriate, and the many other similar things that you've brought to the table in this discussion and keep them with you in BSville, because as I've stated numerous times and will continue to do so--this was not murder, and it was a justified shooting, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't have and shouldn't have been avoided if actions on both sides of the hallway would have been different.

But then again, you must be willing to accept the actual definition of "murder" and the elements surrounding "justified shooting" in order to understand this. Why you are either unwilling or unable to do so is confounding.



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

The difference is that sometimes waiting until you've confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a threat means waiting until it's too late to do something about the threat. And that, in a nutshell, is why each shooting is handled as a unique situation: because they are.

There is no requirement, moral or legal, for a cop to put himself at a disadvantage in a situation so that Monday morning quarterbacks can send his widow a note saying what a shame it is he died, but at least we all know the guy that killed him really meant to kill him.



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

You're a liar, sir. LEOs should be expected to act like Superman every second that they are on the clock.

They chose the profession and know the potential risks--we should just rename "law enforcement" as "operation human shield," because that's the only way that they should be willing to approach any situation like this. You know, take a bullet, but never leave one.

Why have you not already realized this? After 31 pages of people telling you this, you don't just believe it because lotsa peeps say so?



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit


Brit, you're right at least in part. However you do not have time for such luxuries. Please review "furtive movements" and how such actions apply to deadly force. If someone is reaching in a way you'd expect someone to reach for a weapon (including its position on the body) then it is reasonable for the officer to assume they do indeed have a weapon.

Which was the point of him commanding Shaver to keep his hands away from his body and in his view. Granted the commands were pretty #ty, and even conflicting at one or two times. But I don't think the court erred in finding him not guilty of murder 2. The fact he was charged with any variation of murder is pretty ridiculous, given that every expert who testified said the LEO was acting in accordance with training which he clearly did

The whole situation is bad, IMHO.

*For starters, why was he showing anyone the pellet gun to begin with?
*Who called on him in the first place? For what reason?
*Was he brandishing said pellet gun? Aiming it at people? Pointing it at the road out his window (as the 911 caller advised)?

After LE arrives, there is a female also detained. How is she involved?

Then to make matters worse, the location he encounters the subject in couldn't have been worse. Hallways are called fatal funnels for a reason, which makes the job of securing two individuals even harder. On top of that, the subject was between the officer and the hotel room which needed to be made safe as well.

To finish the search, leaving them prone was unacceptable without hooking them up, as moving on to the next area is not proper protocol for clearing a building/room. You deal with suspects as you find them, either secure them or leave someone behind to cover them. This clearly wasn't an option either. It looks like he was laying right by the hotel room door, making an approach to restrain impossible to do safely without also clearing at least one room.



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: TrueBrit

The difference is that sometimes waiting until you've confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a threat means waiting until it's too late to do something about the threat. And that, in a nutshell, is why each shooting is handled as a unique situation: because they are.

There is no requirement, moral or legal, for a cop to put himself at a disadvantage in a situation so that Monday morning quarterbacks can send his widow a note saying what a shame it is he died, but at least we all know the guy that killed him really meant to kill him.


Well said


I don't think a lot of people here realize how fast deadly force encounters happen. It is way too easy for a practiced hand to quickly draw a weapon and fire from muscle memory.

If I was out on today's streets, I would take every last advantage I could muster. We've all seen the cheesy training videos, but they are accurate. From the deputy who approaches an accident involving a hazmat vehicle (with the ammonia vapor cloud) to the myriad of examples where someone quickly draws a gun and shoots the officer (often with fatal accuracy). There is just no room for taking those chances




top topics



 
83
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join