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: 35
83
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

But appealing to authority isn't a logical approach to this topic.




posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver


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?


I am not speaking for SlapMonkey here... but I think it might help to define terms (at least as I understand them). Specifically "justified" and the difference between the common definition of "justified" and the legal definition of justified. Under the common definition, as you and I know it, there was nothing just about that debacle.

However, under the legal definition of justified, shooting the victim was in line with current laws and current interpretations of laws -- including case law -- and therefore under the law this shooting was "justified".

This might make more sense when put into historical, Constitutional, and natural law perspective, in which we all have an absolute inalienable right to life... therefore, it is an automatic crime to take anyone's life -- except in certain very narrow and defined circumstances, such as to protect and defend one's own life from another. So, accordingly, the default perspective was that any time and every time a life was taken that a crime had been committed, unless and until the killer provided proof that he was acting within the law when he took that life, in which case it would be deemed a "justifiable homicide."

The difference between the average Joe Blow and the LEO is that you and I cannot use lethal force unless and until there is a real threat to us. We have to actually see a gun pointed at us or another overt aggressive action against us. Thanks to Tenessee vs Garner, LEOs don't have to actually be threatened -- their "fear" and/or "belief" that someone "might" be a threat is enough to "justify" a homicide.

This may or may not be how SlapMonkey is using the term, but it's still important for the rest of us to understand, in order to know how they get away with this piss-poor policing, and what we need to fix/reform/change.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Umm, the standard of "Murder" is pretty easy to explain to all but the least educated of people. Differentiating between manslaughter and murder in the public eye is staight forward. They went with Murder to satisfy the emotions of people, knowing full well it wouldn't stick.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Umm, the standard of "Murder" is pretty easy to explain to all but the least educated of people. Differentiating between manslaughter and murder in the public eye is staight forward. They went with Murder to satisfy the emotions of people, knowing full well it wouldn't stick.
i agree, And this is the corruption that is being pointed out. They purposefully led this trial in a way which would remove liability from the authorities. Does anyone disagree with that?

The officers escalated a non existent situation which led to the death of an innocent family man, and the local prosecutors led the trial in such a way to protect the officers.

The old saying that there are a few bad cops Who give the rest a bad name, is thrown out the window when it can be shown that the prosecutors are protecting cops who make bad decisions that lead to the death of innocent men.
edit on 13-12-2017 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

If you say so, but just remember that your opinion is not synonymous with fact, and I find it hard to believe that you have the inside scoop as to what the prosecutor was thinking when indictment occurred.

You noted that you hadn't read any comments in this thread before jumping in and calling this an execution. Might I suggest boning up on the facts, first, and THEN forming an opinion? I mean, conspiracy theories are fun and all, but when claims are made as fact without any supporting evidence, you must excuse my reaction when I don't take the claim seriously.


edit on 13-12-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Woodcarver

This might make more sense when put into historical, Constitutional, and natural law perspective, in which we all have an absolute inalienable right to life... therefore, it is an automatic crime to take anyone's life -- except in certain very narrow and defined circumstances, such as to protect and defend one's own life from another. So, accordingly, the default perspective was that any time and every time a life was taken that a crime had been committed, unless and until the killer provided proof that he was acting within the law when he took that life, in which case it would be deemed a "justifiable homicide."

Actually, the way that it is supposed to work is that everyone is considered innocent in the eyes of the justice system until prosecutors can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a crime has been committed.

There is absolutely zero--and I mean ZERO--onus on the accused to "[provide] proof that he was acting within the law."

But the overall point is correct--it takes prosecutors, juries, and judges to determine an illegal killing of a human being, but the onus is on the government to prove that this happened, not on the accused to try and prove innocence.


The difference between the average Joe Blow and the LEO is that you and I cannot use lethal force unless and until there is a real threat to us. We have to actually see a gun pointed at us or another overt aggressive action against us.

This is only partially true, and it depends upon your state in which you live. Laws vary greatly in this regard, and often times, all it takes is the belief that your life was in danger in order to use deadly force.


This may or may not be how SlapMonkey is using the term, but it's still important for the rest of us to understand, in order to know how they get away with this piss-poor policing, and what we need to fix/reform/change.

Of course I'm using the legal definition of "justified" in this regard, and I haven't been using any other definitions for anything that I've been arguing. The inability of people to see this is frustrating, almost to the point of walking away from the conversation (which still may happen if only those unwilling to understand and listen are left to comment).

We're dangerously close to that already.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Look at the timestamps between that post and my others. I went back and read it all in between...due in part, honestly, to some of your comments.

You should know by now, I seldom respond w/o reading most / all of a thread, and identify when I do (as I did).

And no, I don't "know" what was in the DA'S head, just speculation on my part.

ETA...You've spent a great deal of time, effort and words on this thread justifying the actions of the officers in the moment. Okay, fine. You've defended these actions using, among other words, 'hindsight' and the like. Okay there too.

But is it so hard to look back on the incident now and admit, even if in retrospect, that a mistake was clearly made, and a man died from it who probably shouldn't have? Is it that hard?

Or, will you just take the City's side of the all the way to the bitter end, no matter what?




edit on 12/13/2017 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
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!

I would rather people ask questions than just assume so ask away and I will do my best.



originally posted by: Boadicea
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?

In my state it is a mixed bag. Larger departments run their own academies (in addition to follow up field training). Some of those departments do allow slots to be taken by people who will be working for another department (Kansas City area has that type of set up). Colleges also run police academies however there is no job upon completion. The Missouri Sheriff's Association also run their own academies but again no job at the end. They allow a person to obtain their post license and to be hired on by an agency.

Larger departments that have their own academies do not take an officer who graduated from an academy other than their own with the exception of job experience. As an example the Springfield Police department run their own academies (no slots allowed for other agencies). The only way a person can work for them is to either take their academy or already have a post license (class A), a college degree (or 60 credit hours - associates) and worked for another agency for a minimum of 2 years. The person has to go through a modified academy to learn their policy and procedures and their FTO programs are accelerated for release to full duty.

All academies are required to have a certain minimum number of hours (Class A is more than 740). All academies have the same training curriculum since it established as a state wide standard. This does not prevent academies from running longer academies to include more training not required by the state (DWI certification / Taser certification / Long gun certifications etc).

Using the term private is misleading since the state establishes required course material and hours.

After the academy the new officer then, once employed, enters the agency field training program and those can last up to a year before they are released. Just depends on agency and their training program.


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

All fall under Missouri Department of Public Safety requirements.

Example -
Title XXXVIII CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS - Chapter 590 Peace Officers, Selection, Training and Discipline



originally posted by: Boadicea
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?

Mo requires so many hours of continuing education per year to maintain their post license. Those hours are broken down into different categories (technical / Legal / Interpersonal / etc etc). It also includes required classes on emotionally disturbed persons, racial profiling, etc and what not.

Departments set their own criteria for supervisors. Some require college degrees, some require so many years on the job in certain positions. It just depends on agency, agency size, etc etc. My agency required college degrees and time in positions etc. Command staff levels (Lt and higher) are in the same arena but more time in law enforcement. Higher levels are more administrative than command if that makes sense (except Lt's who are responsible for squads which are run by Sergeants and Corporals). Lt's make there way out on the road now and again.



originally posted by: Boadicea
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?

Depends on agency. In my experience a call of this type would be classified high priority and a supervisor would respond. Depending on all that occurs you might get a duty Lt. on scene as well. If shots are fired you get most officers / supervisors / command staff (shots fired call is an automatic code 3 response for us across all division in service.

Better to have to many and not need them than not have enough and need more. Usually command staff will start moving officers back into service as soon as possible. Keep in mind when law enforcement does stop a threat they are considered suspects in a crime just as anyone else is.

On any call supervisors reserve the right to show up on scenes just to check in on things. I would swing by just to see whats going on and what, if any assistance, the primary officer might need (interviewing / securing / watching someone / running people through the system). I am more of a needed resource than show up and take control type. Most of the supervisor / command staff is like that but we do have a few who like to be in command and you just work with it.



originally posted by: Boadicea
I hope these aren't stupid questions... I'm just trying to understand all the whys and wherefores

Nope so dont worry about it. Like I said id rather have people ask than assume.

Also Slaps and Shams experience and answers to the question you posed will most likely be somewhat different due to state / agency quirks. My responses are based on my history / agencies / and 2 states.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
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).





Well no.. It is quite clear as to what would happen if the suspect continued to fail to comply with certain commands - like keep your hands where we can see them. The officer told him he would be shot.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
I have made no excuses. I have presented, along with a few others, the law / reasons why this was seen as justified.

And some are arguing that the legality doesn't make it right, therefore appealing to authority is an excuse.


As I said if you dont like it then learn about the system, learn the laws and then put together a solution you think would work better than what we have now.

Simply bitching and attacking something is not productive and does nothing to get the changes you think is needed.

You also said that the first step is figuring out what went wrong. That is what pointing out the mistakes is. Another would probably be getting popular support of which "bitching" about it in public forums would be a part.


As for the situation that would be the suspect who acted in a manner that caused other people concern when he handled the weapon the way he did.

As for bias I will say you and a few others have no right to make that argument since you are guilty of the very thing you accuse me of. If your going to throw rocks dont do it from inside your glass house.

I asked way back what you think the point I was making was because you keep lumping me in with others.

The situation was a product of everyone taking part not just Shaver, Langley or the people who dialed 911. Funny how the entirety of the situation isn't as important when it doesn't help the argument.

The rest of your post is about legalities which I am not arguing so I won't bother addressing it.
edit on 13-12-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 01:43 PM
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."



originally posted by: SlapMonkey
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.


Just to add to the issue of commands being issued in situations like this (not directed at you slap).

Generally speaking you use the concept of "one voice". 1 officer should be designated as the lone voice for a group of officers when dealing with high risk situations.

Adrenaline, tunnel vision, auditory exclusion , other effects all kick in, for both law enforcement and for the people they are dealing with. You use one voice for continuity and to avoid confusion or conflicting commands from more than one officer.

This is a best practice type concept and agencies will be different on this topic.

For those who want examples go to youtube and search for LAPD police chases and you can see examples of that practice. Its not always 100% but you will get the idea.

The reason law enforcement uses "loud clear repetitive verbal commands" is to break through the audi9o / visual exclusion the person you are dealing with experiences. It is also done so other people not involved but present (officers / different agencies / civilians / witnesses / etc), can hear whats going on. It is also a liability thing for court testimony in that the officer cant be accused of not being heard / clear if there are many witnesses to the contrary.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Yes, I'm having a hard time reconciling some of your responses with my understanding that most of your comments are well-researched and thought out. But I understand the "why" behind people's anger over this incident, I just can't understand why many are incapable or unwilling to see the "other" side of it.

I know that I have a unique perspective (military training, legal training, day job in the legal field) and am able to set aside emotion during discussion more easily than most, but I still...I just can't understand the blatant unwillingness to disregard the possibility that there are valid reasons why the shooting occurred, even if we don't have to like it.

If I'm coming off as snarky to you, I do apologize--like I said, I'm just about at the end of my fatigued rope concerning this thread. It's not personal, so please don't take it as such.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Umm, the standard of "Murder" is pretty easy to explain to all but the least educated of people. Differentiating between manslaughter and murder in the public eye is staight forward. They went with Murder to satisfy the emotions of people, knowing full well it wouldn't stick.



'It looks awful': Ex-officer's acquittal reignites debate over police use of force


.....The case of Brailsford, like the other prosecutions of current or former officers, highlights the challenges prosecutors face in convincing a judge or a jury that an officer unjustifiably killed a person.

"It's very difficult to get a conviction in these cases," said Philip Stinson, a former officer and professor at Bowling Green State University in Ohio who studies police shootings. "Jurors never want to second-guess an officer's split-second decision."


A long read but I think its worth taking a look at. It explains some of the issues prosecutors face in trying to prosecute officers.

Also -
The suspect in this case was also intoxicated, which can have an effect on the situation. Again, this was not known until AFTER the fact.


Also - source

Jurors deliberated for less than six hours over two days, finishing Thursday afternoon. The eight-member jury also found Brailsford not guilty of the lesser charge of reckless manslaughter.

edit on 13-12-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Ironically, I'm not arguing that point at all really.

My point has been, and continues to be, this whole incident was a grave mistake, and like you, I am also dismayed that now, after it all, some people are having such a hard time acknowledging this simple fact.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Damn, how do you manage holding down a day job? Boss away? Jokes aside, you’ve carried a lot of water for the ‘other team’ in this fiercely-debated arena. Here’s to doing it admirably.

I’m still stuck on the other guy retiring, so I was curious if you ever come across the old ‘how do you keep a cop honest’ paradigm? If you buy into Nobel Laurate, Gary Becker’s argument, you hang his pension over his head. You will get the same basic answer on the ‘justness’ of law if you read Richard Posner. Food for thought.

Rest up, I don’t think you’re done carrying water in this thread.


edit on 13-12-2017 by BeefNoMeat because: Hail slapmonkey

edit on 13-12-2017 by BeefNoMeat because: ‘s



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Damn, how do you manage holding down a day job? Boss away? Jokes aside, you’ve carried a lot of water for the ‘other team’ in this fiercely-debated arena. Here’s to doing it admirably.

Yeah...the holidays are a nice time to be on ATS


I will neither confirm nor deny that some of these posts occur while I'm at work.


I’m still stuck on the other guy retiring, so I was curious if you ever come across the old ‘how do you keep a cop honest’ paradigm? If you buy into Nobel Laurate, Gary Becker argument, you hang his pension over his head.

I actually still am a little awestruck that they allowed him to retire as well, all while there was an active investigation/trial into an incident in which he had a major part. I had specifically posted that he is retired numerous times to see if anyone bit on that morsel, and you're the first.

On the flip side, though, I have not researched the retirement or anything surrounding it, so it could be that his paperwork was already in the works or signed when this incident happened. If I recall correctly, he retired within months of the incident, which is a pretty fast timeline if his retirement wasn't already in the works.

It does make one pause to think, though, doesn't it?



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
And some are arguing that the legality doesn't make it right, therefore appealing to authority is an excuse.

and in the end its a court of law and not a court of public opinion who ultimately decide. So, again its not an excuse but if you choose to see it that way you are going to continue having issues in this area.



originally posted by: daskakik
You also said that the first step is figuring out what went wrong. That is what pointing out the mistakes is. Another would probably be getting popular support of which "bitching" about it in public forums would be a part.

Yup - however you forget hindsight 20/20 cannot be used to review an officers use of force. So while the situation can be reviewed and new policies / methods developed from that it doesnt change the outcome of that original call and as you know in our system of justice ex post facto laws are unconstitutional.

When a person challenges something and present a well thought out, and knowledgeable, response then it is always worth the time and effort to review it and maybe make improvements if possible. What doesnt work is bitching about law enforcement, lumping them all together, ignoring the court system in addition to all laws and case laws attached, simply because you couldnt be bothered to take the time to understand what happened.

It is ironic that people in this thread throw out accusations about a lack of law enforcement training when those individuals have never been through the training / academy / etc themselves.

Surely even you can see the issue there.. and the hypocrisy.



originally posted by: daskakik
I asked way back what you think the point I was making was because you keep lumping me in with others.

No, i dont. When a case law is made at the SCOTUS level its applied to all people affected by the ruling. That means when SCOTUS made their ruling in Tennessee vs. Garner, which was an incident in Tennessee dealing with one agency, it applied to every single law enforcement officer in the United States and its territories / possessions / commonwealths.

So there is a fundamental difference in "lumping" things together.



originally posted by: daskakik
The situation was a product of everyone taking part not just Shaver, Langley or the people who dialed 911. Funny how the entirety of the situation isn't as important when it doesn't help the argument.

The rest of your post is about legalities which I am not arguing so I won't bother addressing it.

the situation was a product of the suspect messing around with his rifle near a window / pointing it out the window and doing so in an intoxicated manner. It was compounded by his inability to keep his hands where they could be seen.

The legalities are very important in these areas and goes hand in hand with everything that occurred. Your not addressing it might be why you are having difficulty in understanding the other side of the argument.



edit on 13-12-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I understand the other side perfectly, which is why I am not arguing against it.

I also didn't say you were lumping things together, I said you were lumping me in with others who are arguing against you on that point.

No, the situation is a product of everyone involved. You wouldn't have that same situation with any one person not playing their part. Even timing played a part and the loose band on the shorts.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc is not always true.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

It’s all good. Most everyone has checked out or will have by Friday.

Yeah, I jumped into this thread by responding to someone and piggy-backed off the nonsense of charging the guy with 2nd-degree murder...but I really wanted to discuss the retirement. He was unwilling to engage, so each time I’ve commented I’ve tried to get that ball rolling...

Out and out malfeasance could clog up someone’s desk (computer, now, but it was a desk when Becker wrote about it) if they’re processing his retirement. So the timing is really sketchy — outside of it being planned and it is just coincidence — and once the emotions and semantics slowly take a backseat, maybe one of ATS’s super sleuths could uncover more? He’s either doing the Asian street meat thing, or he’s laying low in the Philippines (“Langley” doesn’t exactly connote Tagalog ancestry). Just doesn’t feel right. My $0.02



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join