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: 34
84
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

And even if those exact commands were go en and the suspect still reached for his waistband you would get the same response.




posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Hmm...


Probably because state and federal legislators are exceedingly reluctant to try and write a law that gives law enforcement a script they’re required by law to follow when dealing with a fluid and dynamic situation.


That seems a reasonable suggestion... It seems to me though, that state and Federal legislators, if they are worth being appointed to their posts, should figure out a way to legislate for a dynamic situation, and do it IMMEDIATELY, so that the next time something like this happens in similar circumstances, someone goes to jail. The shooting was not justifiable, and a man who did nothing illegal, nothing dangerous to the citizens of the country he lived in, lays dead because of it.



A lot of the talk I’ve seen online is that this should have been handled like a felony traffic stop, and I agree with that. But the manner in which a a felony stop is conductedis a policy, and it’s a policy that can be deviated from at any point in the policy, for essentially any reason. It’s not a requirement that an officer does this exact thing in this exact order every time.


Of course not. That would be absurd. But its also realistic to suggest that there ARE things that an officer must not do, like ordering a person to crawl forward, while also ordering them to keep their hands up, but lay on the ground at the same time, and expecting a human being not to try to pull their trousers up when their motion across the ground causes them to be dragged off, which is an entirely involuntary response, like blinking, or sneezing. Most people, when faced with their trousers falling off, will respond in ANY situation, by pulling them up, regardless of whether they have been told not to, or not. Its an UNUSUAL person who would not respond that way.

And also, does this whole situation not bring up some rather concerning issues about the powers police have? If someone can get away with shooting a prone, unarmed person, just because he failed to follow totally unclear instructions while terrified out of his mind? If any person is in a position to shoot another person for non-compliance, does that not suggest that a tyranny has sprung up? Why is it that a police officers order is considered so important, that an officer can get away with shooting someone for failing to follow instructions, which is what actually happened here?



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thank you very much for the information on training -- it's greatly appreciated! I've been trying to understand the training standards/process and it's a little confusing. Perhaps because there is no uniform training program for all officers. And thank you for the offer to ask more questions... I hope I don't make you regret it!

Do I understand correctly that police academies are private institutions for the most part? Do any police departments or sheriff's departments offer their own academies for example? Is it fair to say that most would-be LEOs attend the police academy and then receive further on-the-job training from whichever law enforcement agency subsequently hires them?

(I just looked up who grants accreditation to these academies... apparently a few entities... lots to read there!)

I understand there are continuing education courses also, I assume at least some are mandatory; are there specific training courses for supervisors or commanding officers? (I'm not sure what the proper verbiage would be -- sorry!). And is it fair for me to assume that each department would have its own requirements for those supervising officers? Or is that more decided by the county/state?

In terms of this specific instance, is it typical for the sergeant to join officers on a call like this? Is that a judgment call made by the sergeant on a case-by-case basis? And when the sergeant is on site, is he pretty much calling the shots? Are the officers trained to listen and obey from his cue?

I hope these aren't stupid questions... I'm just trying to understand all the whys and wherefores



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Okay, but they weren't used...so you have no idea what the suspect would have done if they had been!

Maybe he would have complied. Maybe he would have complied, and we wouldn't be having this conversation (which would be fine by me).



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: robynd0623
a reply to: Xcathdra

I agree with retired FBI agent James Gagliano --

Shaver's shooting was an avoidable execution. "Brailsford caused this tragedy, and it was entirely preventable." "His unprofessional conduct, inexperience, and confusingly issued commands directly and indirectly influenced Shaver's reactions that resulted in the shooting." "I have never heard a law enforcement professional use such offensive -- almost taunting -- rhetoric. The police officer appeared hell-bent on baiting a confused but receptive and compliant subject into making a deadly mistake."

So, you are agreeing with a retired FBI agent who can't even tell that Brailsford was not the one giving the commands to Shaver, but a different officer altogether?

Let me know how that works out for you.

That said, he's now wrong about the commands being confusing and problematic, for the most part, but that wasn't Brailsford's problem that was Sgt. (ret.) Langley's problem for screaming the way that he did.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
12 people who weren’t given all of the information.

Like what? You keep saying that, but never mention what they were missing (unless I didn't read those comments).

Care to enlighten everyone on your inside knowledge?


Everyone in this thread has agreed that the officer who shot the young man, made several mistakes. Those mistakes led him to misjudge the amount of danger he was in. The officer was scared. His voice was trembling, he started the event yelling threats of murder from the start. He gave several inconsistant and confusing orders.

No, you're making two separate officers into one. This has already been noted innumerable times in this thread. You need to figure this out before you pretend to understand this incident any further.


... this guy was just some guy with his family, who happened to be seen with a gun, WHICH IS NOT A CRIME and does not illicit the response that took place.

The statute that makes what he did a crime has also been cited numerous times in this thread.

The report of him having a firearm is not what ended in him getting shot--it was a different action altogether. Again, you are blurring two separate things (apparently) in order to justify your outrage.


The only people i have seen that think this was not a scared cop fatally losing his composure are other cops, and that is the truly scary part.

Well, you're lying here, too, then.

And to which cop are your referring, Brailsford, or Langley? Do you even know the difference and what their roles were in this incident?


This cop’s jury was not given all of the information.

Again, prove this point that you keep making, because I'm willing to bet my paycheck that you don't understand the standards of evidence in a court of law.


His department fired him to save thier own asses.

On this we agree, although I think that it was more political than concerns over payouts. I'm sure that they will get a civil suit, regardless of the firing.


As long as cops and judges protect cops and judges, justice is a farce.

And as long as you continually and consistently misrepresent what happened and fail to differentiate even the easiest of details in this case, your opinion on the matter is just hyperbolic, willful ignorance.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Slap, all due respect, but one question for you...

Simply...do you think Daniel Shaver 'deserved' to die? Forget all the legal technicalities...did he "deserve" to die in that hotel hallway?

Yes, or no?

(in your opinion of course).



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I understand why it seems like semantics... and in a way that's all it is -- but with deadly consequences! That's how the game is played. And if we have any hope of ever stopping this, we have to understand that game and play it better.

It goes back to case law and a very poorly written and/or thought-out ruling (Tennessee vs Garner) which stated an officer can use lethal force if he/she believes that his/her life might be in danger.... which sounds great in theory but is devastating in practice. Especially when officers have it drilled into their heads that every single person out there is a threat to their life, when in reality very very few people are any threat at all but everyone is pre-judged guilty.

Then throw in training (or lack thereof) that in effect creates very volatile and dangerous situations for everyone involved, but a system that ignores the contributing factors of law enforcement. So even though the LEOs created the very situation they feared, they can just kill the guy and walk away saying, "I was justified. I was afraid that he might be a threat."

In this situation, there's no doubt that the " You're Eff'd" thug was a ticking time bomb... and there's no doubt that his sergeant knew that... and in my mind at least there's no doubt that the sergeant was doing everything possible to egg the situation on. Like a sick game of Russian Roulette... "let's see how long it takes until this sucker fails to comply and gets shot"... and the sergeant knows he won't be held responsible. No criminal charges for him! He can just resign and flee the country. It's the officer who pulled the trigger who has to face the music. But he can simply say, "Hey -- I was just following orders, and the law says that if he makes any movement that might be threatening to us, that we can kill him in cold blood." And he cites case law -- Tennessee vs Garner -- and the jury has to acquit.

I do believe it's quite possible to overturn the Tennessee vs Garner decision; but the ones with the resources to pursue the case are the ones with the least incentive to do so. Our congress critters could also write new laws -- especially in addressing law enforcement policies and procedures that contribute to threatening situations, and including requirements for proper training and defensive equipment for all officers -- but they know which side their bread is buttered on. I also think eliminating private prisons would go a long way towards the incentive/motivation to make as many folks as possible "criminals"...

The public needs to be educated on real ways to reform the system, the real people working for reform that need our support (and that's NOT "Black Lives Matter"!!!), and otherwise provide and demand specific reforms. This is so much bigger than the cop on the street. They don't make the rules, they can't change the rules, they just enforce the rules. The only way to stop it is at the top.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: SlapMonkey

1) If you think law is not supposed to be written to uphold justice, then you have totally misunderstood the purpose of law, the reason for its very existence.

Yeah, okay.

Justice is an effect of laws, not a cause. Laws don't cause justice, they define reasons why justice must be considered. Disagree all that you want, but again, my experience directly in the justice system and understanding of the system trumps your opinion in my life.


2) Your assertion that people automatically have well honed preservation instincts is simply incorrect, which is why so many people merely freeze up, become immediately traumatised and FAIL to behave in ways which might save their lives, when in stressful situations. It happens all the time, but never mind reality, eh?

So, what you and I have done have argued each side of the fight-or-flight model.

That is the reality--some people are capable of instinctually preserving their own lives (or doing their best to try), and others let fear take over them and simply react without much thought (both instances can be applied to fight and flight, determined by the scenario).

My point was that you were insinuating that NO civilian is trained to react in stressful situations, and my point was that training is not necessary. If the generic "you" is one who loses all composure and ability to think in the face of stress, maybe "you" should take some personal responsibility and better "yourself" in that regard.

So, reality is that SOME people should get training to deal with stressful situations, but statistically speaking (real statistics), the vast majority of people know how to cope in situations like this without any sort of training.


3) If you expect people to perform precisely as directed, then you must also insist that the instructions they are given are clear, not confused, delivered in a calm manner, and are possible to complete without a persons pants falling down, for a start!

Show me where I've argued that the commands were perfect and Shaver should have had no problems complying...I'll give you hint: I haven't.

I have, however, noted that the woman was able to follow similar commands in a similar tone and make it out alive without making threatening movements.

I have, however, noted that THE command--the important one--for Shaver to not reach for his waistband/small of his back again, lest he be shot, was perfectly clear and concise (and, for argument's sake, common sense).

I have, however, noted numerous times that I think better commands could have avoided this shooting altogether.

I guess in your world, though, the officers should have known that the rifles were just air guns, that Shaver had no weapon on him, and that the threatening actions of reaching for his waistband were just the result of Shaver wearing loose pants.

Your apparent expectations of these officers are absurd, and that's why I'm done with this discussion with you, as the points that you are making appear logical on the surface, but lack any true depth beneath, resulting in me (and others) explaining pertinent things repeatedly and you ignoring and disregarding said things. You are approaching this from a philosophical viewpoint, while I'm approaching from a practical viewpoint.

This is why we are oil and water on this incident.

Best regards, sir.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Thank you. I think this is worth repeating. My thanks to Shamrock and SlapMonkey also for sharing your knowledge and experience with us as well... especially because you all get so much grief for doing so. I have argued/debated the issues with all of you, and I don't like what you have to tell us, but I very much appreciate that you do share your expertise, and that you do it so reasonably and politely.


For the rest of us, we need to appreciate the value of what these LEOs are sharing with us, and use that knowledge to make the changes we want to see. The rot starts at the TOP -- not the bottom. The officers are on the street are doing what they are trained and told to do. Of course the critters at the top want us to look at the individual officers on the street and blame them and only them... (divide and conquer)... Because it gets us nowhere!!! We need to understand how it came to be this way and how it stays this way, and attack the problem at the root. In the courts, in the legislature, in the unions, etc.

I completely agree with you, except that I'm not in law enforcement, I used to work in the legal field at the federal level, and now work in criminal investigation at the federal level working with federal investigators and AUSAs (Assistant U.S. Attorneys) concerning courtroom strategy, evidence, and the like.

Shamrock6 and Xcathdra are the LEO experts, I just know the courtroom and its inner workings better than most.

I felt that this distinction needed made, which is also why you see me discuss laws and court procedures more, and while Sham and X are much better-versed on tactics, SOP, and analyzing officers' actions.

Like you are noting, though, the excessive amount of willful ignorance in the face of all of this information (which is easily verified through our links or by searching laws and procedures one's self) is astounding and indicative that most people don't really want to understand, they just want to complain and argue.

It's demoralizing, really, but thanks for the props you threw out. I think that we're all capable of taking the blowback--that's understandable--but it's the sheer unwillingness to understand by so many that really baffles us (or at least me).



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Simply...do you think Daniel Shaver 'deserved' to die? Forget all the legal technicalities...did he "deserve" to die in that hotel hallway?

Yes, or no?

That's too broad of a question to ask, because there's the in-the-moment answer, and the 20/20-hindsight answer.

In the moment: As heartless as this sounds, I think that Shaver was shot as a result of his own actions that, moments prior, were warned specifically and quite clearly (and definitely loud enough) that it would result in him getting shot. The actions at the time, with what was reported to dispatch and relayed to the officers, justified an assumption that Shaver could be armed and that reaching for a waistband would be considered a threatening acting to which the officer could respond with deadly force.

20/20 hindsight: No, Shaver did not deserve to be shot. Sgt. (ret.) Langley, who was screaming the orders at Shaver, should have and could have done it in a much calmer, clearer fashion, and the fact that he chose screaming and unclear commands as his approach, coupled with Shaver's obvious (well, "apparent") panic attack that ensued right before he started crawling (brought on by the screaming and threat of being shot), are what led to Shaver being shot to death. Like I said (and have said multiple times in this thread), Shaver might still be alive today if a few things were done differently on both sides of the incident.

With that said, though, this doesn't mean that Brailsford's firing on Shaver was unjustified, just that it could have been avoided if Langley would have been more professional, IMO.

But like you say, that's my opinion, and playing the hypothetical game doesn't change the reality of what happened.

But deserve to die? No.

Deserve to have the cops called on him for waiving a rifle around and pointing it at a highway? Absolutely.

Were the LEOs justified in considering him armed and dangerous? Absolutely.

Was it 2nd-degree murder? Not at all.

I know that I answered more than what you asked, I'm just trying to remain clear on my stance on this.
edit on 13-12-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Justice is not an effect of law.

Justice existed for many years before the first written law was ever scribed, as those who were wronged exacted compensation from those who wronged them, without written law to guide them for eons, none the less ensuring that debts of trespass were paid, either in coin, or in blood, as seemed most fitting at the time. It was not perfect by any means, but murderers, thieves and thugs were punished well before their crimes were ever described by legislation.

Justice is a natural concept, an older one than law. All law is, is a tool by which justice might be BETTER bought about, assuming those writing it do so in good faith, in unabashed and unbiased fashion, thereby to render all equal before the law, not some more equal than others.

Your experience in a field too much in love with its own power and importance, does not make your attitude toward this any more legitimate or credible than my own. It only shows that your experience has clouded your understanding of the importance of each concept relative to the other. Law which is unjust is no law at all. I am far from the first person to suggest such a thing. If you wish to argue that point, you might want to speak, when your maker has been met and you gather with the throng at Heavens gates, with Martin Luther King Jnr about the matter, and see how far your experience gets you in debate with him in the matter!

And furthermore, ends do not justify means. What I mean by that is, that if ones practical performance does not achieve a philosophically acceptable aim, then one should stop performing at all, and leave the field of operation until someone who CAN match performance to philosophy arrives to do the job instead.



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

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Simply...do you think Daniel Shaver 'deserved' to die? Forget all the legal technicalities...did he "deserve" to die in that hotel hallway?

Yes, or no?

That's too broad of a question to ask, because there's the in-the-moment answer, and the 20/20-hindsight answer.

In the moment: As heartless as this sounds, I think that Shaver was shot as a result of his own actions that, moments prior, were warned specifically and quite clearly (and definitely loud enough) that it would result in him getting shot. The actions at the time, with what was reported to dispatch and relayed to the officers, justified an assumption that Shaver could be armed and that reaching for a waistband would be considered a threatening acting to which the officer could respond with deadly force.

20/20 hindsight: No, Shaver did not deserve to be shot. Sgt. (ret.) Langley, who was screaming the orders at Shaver, should have and could have done it in a much calmer, clearer fashion, and the fact that he chose screaming and unclear commands as his approach, coupled with Shaver's obvious (well, "apparent") panic attack that ensued right before he started crawling (brought on by the screaming and threat of being shot), are what led to Shaver being shot to death. Like I said (and have said multiple times in this thread), Shaver might still be alive today if a few things were done differently on both sides of the incident.

With that said, though, this doesn't mean that Brailsford's firing on Shaver was unjustified, just that it could have been avoided if Langley would have been more professional, IMO.

But like you say, that's my opinion, and playing the hypothetical game doesn't change the reality of what happened.

But deserve to die? No.

Deserve to have the cops called on him for waiving a rifle around and pointing it at a highway? Absolutely.

Were the LEOs justified in considering him armed and dangerous? Absolutely.

Was it 2nd-degree murder? Not at all.

I know that I answered more than what you asked, I'm just trying to remain clear on my stance on this.
Whoa whoa wait. So you’re saying that the officer’s Screaming and confusing orders led to the situation that ultimately ended up in shaver being shot five times., But shooting Mr. shaver was justified? So in a sense this loophole could be used to justify shooting anybody? The officer just needs to order a suspect into a compromising situation, and then his actions are justified. You’re judging the situation by the last two seconds and ignoring everything leading up to it. Everyone is in agreement that these officers made mistakes. These mistakes put an innocent man down. But these mistakes do not make the officers liable?
edit on 13-12-2017 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You're welcome

And thanks for making the distinction -- duly noted. Your contributions are still very much appreciated. Court room procedures, rules of evidence, all that's important to know and understand too.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Your experience in a field too much in love with its own power and importance, does not make your attitude toward this any more legitimate or credible than my own.

Nor does your inexperience on the matter make your view of the topic clearer or more correct. At least I speak from a practical platform and not a philosophical one.


It only shows that your experience has clouded your understanding of the importance of each concept relative to the other. Law which is unjust is no law at all. I am far from the first person to suggest such a thing. If you wish to argue that point, you might want to speak, when your maker has been met and you gather with the throng at Heavens gates, with Martin Luther King Jnr about the matter, and see how far your experience gets you in debate with him in the matter!


This is why talking with you is so difficult these days (it didn't used to be)--you come to a conclusion about me because I understand the difference between the use and purpose of law versus justice. I'm clouded in judgment because it has been my profession, even though I've worked from prosecution to defense to family law and now to criminal investigation (many different fields that approach law and justice differently). But you're right, I'm sure that your philosophical views are much more appropriate than mine--and then you bring religion into it, which to me is digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Here's the bottom line: Yes, laws can be unjust. Laws that say that I cannot build a tiny home for a homeless man are unjust, or laws that say my daughter cannot sell lemonade without a permit from the health department are unjust. But the main reason that laws exist is two-fold: To maintain order in a society, and to give citizens a path to justice...a legal way to seek out justice for wrongs committed against them or another.

So, while a law can be unjust, a law is not "written to uphold justice," as you say, but as a means to maintain order and be a path to justice when that order is disrupted.

Regardless, I'm tired of this line of discussion. We can agree to disagree.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Your experience in a field too much in love with its own power and importance, does not make your attitude toward this any more legitimate or credible than my own.

Nor does your inexperience on the matter make your view of the topic clearer or more correct. At least I speak from a practical platform and not a philosophical one.


It only shows that your experience has clouded your understanding of the importance of each concept relative to the other. Law which is unjust is no law at all. I am far from the first person to suggest such a thing. If you wish to argue that point, you might want to speak, when your maker has been met and you gather with the throng at Heavens gates, with Martin Luther King Jnr about the matter, and see how far your experience gets you in debate with him in the matter!


This is why talking with you is so difficult these days (it didn't used to be)--you come to a conclusion about me because I understand the difference between the use and purpose of law versus justice. I'm clouded in judgment because it has been my profession, even though I've worked from prosecution to defense to family law and now to criminal investigation (many different fields that approach law and justice differently). But you're right, I'm sure that your philosophical views are much more appropriate than mine--and then you bring religion into it, which to me is digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Here's the bottom line: Yes, laws can be unjust. Laws that say that I cannot build a tiny home for a homeless man are unjust, or laws that say my daughter cannot sell lemonade without a permit from the health department are unjust. But the main reason that laws exist is two-fold: To maintain order in a society, and to give citizens a path to justice...a legal way to seek out justice for wrongs committed against them or another.

So, while a law can be unjust, a law is not "written to uphold justice," as you say, but as a means to maintain order and be a path to justice when that order is disrupted.

Regardless, I'm tired of this line of discussion. We can agree to disagree.
yes. You were trained by the system to accept these standards. Standards that seem ridiculous to people who are not trained by that same system. What we are saying is that the system is flawed if this is the expected or preferred outcome of that system.
edit on 13-12-2017 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

The real question here is did these officers follow their training? Is this how they are taught to handle a situation like this? If you think they did handle this appropriately, then their training is #ed and so are we. If they did not follow their training/protocols, then wouldn’t their actions, screaming, confusing orders, have led to this death?

I can see how this officer was not convicted of second-degree murder, but then, why was he charged with second-degree murder instead of manslaughter? To me, these are the games that the justice system plays. This is how prosecutors and judges sidestep the legal system and remove liability from the department, the city, or the state.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Whoa whoa wait. So you’re saying that the officer’s Screaming and confusing orders led to the situation that ultimately ended up in shaver being shot five times.

No, I'm saying that it was possibly, per my own belief, one ingredient that led to it. I don't know for sure, but with my 20/20-hindsight vision, it's pretty obvious that Langley could have done a better job.


But shooting Mr. shaver was justified?

Why? Why even respond if you're unwilling or incapable to understand that I PLAINLY spelled out that there are two ways to see this incident. You are hyperfocused on the 20/20 hinsight and seem incapable of placing yourself in this situation as it happened.

Being so incapable, it's not surprising that you can't figure out how you can see that an officer's actions could have helped cause the declination of the situation AND the shooting be justified. But honestly, stop taking my or other people's words for it and just realize that after a full trial and jury deliberation, they also saw it as a justified shooting, and they were privy to MUCH MORE evidence than we are.


So in a sense this loophole could be used to justify shooting anybody?

No, that's just you being ignorant and inflammatory.


You’re judging the situation by the last two seconds and ignoring everything leading up to it. Everyone is in agreement that these officers made mistakes. These mistakes put an innocent man down. But these mistakes do not make the officers liable?

No, you're ignoring everything that has been spelled out ad nauseam to you and others in this thread concerning understanding the whole picture, from waving the gun in the window through the five shots, and using that to form your conclusion.

Yes, ONE officer (not the one charged with murder) could have used a different approach, but it was not a criminal mistake to do what he did. The final actions of Mr. Shaver are what got himself killed, and the directions not to do what he did were very clear, both in what not to do and what the result would be.

An officer's use of screaming versus a calmer tone does not negate the reality that Shaver, for whatever reason, repeated a threatening action.

But honestly, this is the last response to you that I will do--you have commented on page after page, dismissing and trivializing certain elements of this tragic confrontation, and cherry-picking ones that help bolster your hatred of these cops, all the while misinterpreting comments from others and twisting them to fit your narrative. Causing more comments from you is unhealthy to this thread, so I will refrain from doing so, I just wanted to answer your questions, even knowing full well what the probable outcome will be.

Best regards.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I merely meant to suggest that Martin Luther King, a man wiser and more experienced in ALL matters than either of us, thought differently to you on the matter, and unfortunately, he died believing it, so he is unavailable to comment. I did not mean to bring religion into it, as you put it, only to point out that my view is not unsupported, since persons of supreme learning and wisdom from time ago, held it also.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: SlapMonkey


I can see how this officer was not convicted of second-degree murder, but then, why was he charged with second-degree murder instead of manslaughter? To me, these are the games that the justice system plays. This is how prosecutors and judges sidestep the legal system and remove liability from the department, the city, or the state.


I lied...I'll respond to this one.

The answer, often enough, is perception. The prosecutors don't want to be perceived as being soft on controversial police actions, so they try LEOs on charges that they shouldn't be tried on in the first place--all in an effort to not be seen as a city or prosecutor who is soft on "bad cops."

Now, let's look at these two scenarios that I have seen played out time and time again:
    1. Prosecutors charge officers with mild-enough charges to get a conviction, yet people will scream that they should have been tried for murder, or something higher, and then the prosecutor is accused by the Court of Public Opinion of going soft on the officer BECAUSE they're a cop and part of this big conspiracy to have each other's backs.

    2. Prosecutors see the above happen, or are just overzealous, and over-charge the officer, like in this particular case, and then they get an acquittal because they don't have the evidence and the officer didn't do the actions necessary to be found guilty. Then the infamous Court of Public Opinion blasts both the prosecutor for doing it wrong AND the cop for being a murderer, even though he isn't (in the eyes of the law).

Quite honestly, what the Court of Public Opinion has done is corrupted a system that should be blind to all of this external influence and only be indicting people on the merits of the evidence when compared to the actions. But we have lost that, and honestly, don't know if it ever existed, but it has gotten a lot worse over the past decades. It's even gotten to the point where we can't read a story about the Supreme Court without "Liberal" or "Conservative" being added in front of a Justice's name.

Yes, the system can be corrupt from the inside--the sh*t that I heard when I was meeting with AUSAs in Los Angeles about the corruption in the system there would infuriate you--but it's also corrupted from the outside, and often by people angry at the corruption of the system.

So, we have self-fulfilling prophecies happening, coupled with internal issues in the legal system as well. Yes, the system does sometimes play games (although not nearly as often as people claim), but there's a lot more to it than that, and often times its external pressures that cause prosecutors to over-charge, under-charge, or not charge people in cases.



new topics




 
84
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join