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

a reply to: Xcathdra

So? I'm not arguing that either.

I'm just pointing out observations.

ETA: And your "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." is Ergo Propter Hoc.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra

So? I'm not arguing that either.

I'm just pointing out observations.

ETA: And your "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." is Ergo Propter Hoc.

Not really since it was his actions that started the situation. It was his being intoxicated that compounded the problem. It was his refusal to comply with "keep your hands where we can see them" that was the straw that broke the camels back. The actions of the suspect, not the officers, is why this ended the way it did.

a reply to: daskakik

Man, simple note here: You are inappropriately citing logical fallacies.

Citing law is not an appeal to authority.

Citing that someone's own actions (illegal, BTW) led to subsequent actions as it pertains to the response of law enforcement is not 'post ergo propter hoc.' It's called consequences for your action.

What you're doing is misusing logical fallacies in order to absolve the victim of any personal responsibility.

Are you sure that you're not a defense lawyer or something?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Not really since it was his actions that started the situation.

Started doesn't mean it was the sole action that led to the situation.

I truly believe you can't/won't see that because of your bias and you use the acquittal to convince yourself. You are not convincing anyone else so maybe you should consider not wasting your time.

Me? I'm just making observations.

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Yeah, the whole retiring within months and fleeing the country is really odd...I forgot he moved when I replied earlier.

But, hey, I practice a few Filipino martial arts, so I can see there being SOME appeal to heading to that part of the country. I doubt that was his motive, though.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Man, simple note here: You are inappropriately citing logical fallacies.

Citing law is not an appeal to authority.

It is when the argument says "he did nothing wrong because he was acquitted". That is like saying you are not a criminal if you can get away with it.

Citing that someone's own actions (illegal, BTW) led to subsequent actions as it pertains to the response of law enforcement is not 'post ergo propter hoc.' It's called consequences for your action.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.

He obviously wasn't shot on sight so something happened after handling the rifle that actually led to him being shot. We all know what that is, reaching for his waistband and something led to him reaching for his waistband and it wasn't having pointed a rifle out of a window earlier that day.

originally posted by: daskakik
It is when the argument says "he did nothing wrong because he was acquitted". That is like saying you are not a criminal if you can get away with it.

Who has said that as a sole basis to their argument, though? I haven't seen ANYONE on here do that. I have seen people support the acquittal with facts and laws and explanations of procedures, but no one has simply claimed that the acquittal is "proof" of no wrong-doing.

He obviously wasn't shot on sight so something happened after handling the rifle that actually led to him being shot. We all know what that is, reaching for his waistband but something led to him reaching for his waistband and it wasn't having pointed a rifle out of a window earlier that day.

And again, not one person noting the justified nature of this shooting has argued that it was point the rifle out of the window that got him shot.

Waiving the rifle around at the window and pointing it at the highway is was got officers called to the hotel with the appropriate assumption that he was armed and dangerous. After that, it was the second reach for the waistband, as you note, that resulted in shots fired.

So, again, who claimed that it was the rifle out the window that directly led him to being shot?

(pssst...no one did)

That's my point--you are pulling up logical fallacies and trying to shut down conversations when, in reality, you are doing it at inappropriate times. "Just making observations" isn't something to hide behind when you're contributing nothing of substance to this thread, and in reality, are just derailing worse than has already been done.

Speaking of not wasting your time and all...

a reply to: daskakik

As i have stated my position is based on my experience and training and knowledge of the laws / case laws in question. When you account for everything, or totality of circumstances, you arrive at an answer. The answer / position, when dissected and compared to applicable law, becomes a solid foundation to build on. Sure you can chip away and create cracks but it doesnt change the overall fact that the base was in fact solid.

As an example could officers have done something different than firing - Sure.
However it doesnt mean the action they chose was the wrong one and the law supports that fact.

Now, from a police perspective did the department policies restrict the officers actions - Sure.
However it doesnt mean laws or civil / constitutional rights were violated.

There is a fundamental reason why laws and court case law doesnt create rigid use of force guidelines. Each incident is in its own category. The courts recognize that no situation will ever be the same as any other situation. They might be similar but never the same. When you start creating a rule for every single encounter, a law for every single use of force incident, you are placing more people in danger, not less.

That view goes along with how our legal system adjudicates cases. You have precedents and what not but in the end each case that goes before a judge is in its own category with its own set of facts that will never be the exact same with another case.

The last thing any of us want to do is be forced to take someones life. As I stated I have been lucky in my career that ive only had to kill animals and thankfully no humans (several close calls).

i am not biased by my profession however I am knowledgeable, more so than most people, because of it.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Playing poker and shooting pool is a martial art? I kid. I remember you penning a thread about one of your ‘teachers’ passing and I think I commented. ATS isn’t my go-to ‘online karate magazine’, so I tend to remember those threads — what martial arts could he discover/practice in the Philippines (legit query)?

I will say this much: any state attorney in the unenviable position of prosecuting one of their subordinates, would do well to read this thread and leave the case law book as a desk accessory. You guys (Shamrock and yourself) have done a public service for the next time this happens. We both know it will.

Belated Happy Hanukkah!

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Who has said that as a sole basis to their argument, though? I haven't seen ANYONE on here do that. I have seen people support the acquittal with facts and laws and explanations of procedures, but no one has simply claimed that the acquittal is "proof" of no wrong-doing.

It was an oversimplification.

It is all part of what culminated in the acquittal.

And again, not one person noting the justified nature of this shooting has argued that it was point the rifle out of the window that got him shot.

True, but they are not accepting that it wasn't only Shavers actions either.

So, again, who claimed that it was the rifle out the window that directly led him to being shot?

(pssst...no one did)

I quoted it at the top of this page.

Considering not wasting your time and all...

You keep saying that but, here you are.

a reply to: Xcathdra

And as I stated, I don't care because I'm not arguing against any of that.

If you were biased you probably wouldn't realize it so you saying you are not is pointless.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra

And as I stated, I don't care because I'm not arguing against any of that.

If you were biased you probably wouldn't realize it so you saying you are not is pointless.

and using a circular argument doesnt help your position so maybe stop using it and instead use facts to support your argument.

Your position makes no sense in that you say you aren't challenging the law. Well the law in question was not violated so simply trying to dismiss that from your argument is even more baffling as it moves your position back into the realm of opinion being substituted for law / case law and procedure.

You seem to be confusing bias with training and knowledge.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
and using a circular argument doesnt help your position so maybe stop using it and instead use facts to support your argument.

I'm not arguing anything.

Your position makes no sense in that you say you aren't challenging the law. Well the law in question was not violated so simply trying to dismiss that from your argument is even more baffling as it moves your position back into the realm of opinion being substituted for law / case law and procedure.

So you don't actually see what I'm saying. Oh well, I can't say it any simpler.

You seem to be confusing bias with training and knowledge.

No, you can't even grasp that I'm just making observations without judgment as to legality and your bias makes you get defensive.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: wickd_waze

I think the training of officers is poor. Or perhaps maybe the training is for critical thinking people and not for people hell bent on looking for ways around protocols to get themselves some scalps.
An example being an obvious non threat getting shot up trying to balance himself and instincts kicking in to pull up his pants in a very confusing situation. No ones gonne be thinking straight with assault rifles pointed at them. The officers there had numbers and no one had the galls to go up to where they the suspect laying on his stomach and pin him? He had crawled far away enough from the door at that point.

I'm still trying to work this out in my head... but I think our officers are trained exactly how the PTB want them to be trained -- but their purposes are very different than ours!!!

In this situation, as I understand it (and someone correct me quick if I'm wrong!!!), the one screaming and barking virtually impossible orders to the victim was not the officer who fired the gun, but it was the officer's sergeant... presumably the one in charge of this whole travesty, and who fled to the Phillipines after the shooting leaving the officer to face the music alone... like the freaking piece of crap coward that he obviously is. It was the sergeant who was putting EVERYONE on edge and created a volatile situation for EVERYONE -- including his officers. None of that was necessary nor proper.

This may not be the best analogy, but it's similar to how children will react to a parent's reaction. When my kids were little and falling and tripping and whatever, I would wait to see what they did before I reacted -- if they brushed themselves off and went on their way, then great. If they cried and screamed, then I went to see what was hurt. My hubby and mother-in-law would absolutely panic though -- and then my kids would panic!

All this to say, I think the officer reacted as much to the panic and chaos caused by the sergeant as he did to the actions of the victim.

One of the things the public needs to shine a huge spotlight on is how officer training and/or procedure often CREATES dangerous situations... or at least situations that can be perceived as dangerous by an officer, if not outright provocation (such as a no-knock warrant, in which the occupants try to defend themselves, and are then shot and killed because the officers' lives were threatened). In this case, for example, this guy was NEVER a threat to the officers. But they did not know that. So he was considered/perceived/treated as a definite threat. Guilty until proven innocent even if that proof necessarily comes after his death.

You make a lot of good points. It got me thinking public service commercial spots like the seventies and eighties. But thats probably too offensive or people might be too sensitive to it or be offended even, I dont know.

It's not good either that if Brailsford didn't shoot, someone else there might have. For me, eff it, I would have went with my instincts and stereotyped that guy and not fire because he didn't look like a criminal to me and didn't seem like a "tough" guy type because of the way he talked, all emotional, and broke down. Also looked like someone who was employed. He dressed normal also. I could point out many more but all in all he just didn't seem like or look like the type who would shoot it out with cops or start sniping people in public.

a reply to: daskakik

So the only way you support your argument is by hiding behind generic terms and excuses - check.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm not arguing so I don't have to hide behind anything.

You just can't seem to grasp what I'm saying because you are to busy defending against whatever you think I'm arguing.

a reply to: daskakik

You are arguing that the cop was a dick?

I agree. Hard to see otherwise.

a reply to: Phage

Which cop?

Actually something posted about Brailsford beating a teen might be used to say he was a dick but Langley was the one giving the instructions. I can't say he was a dick. I might say that he may have panicked and could have handled things better but that would be speculation.

Xcathdra keeps asking me to use facts, which I have. What caused Shaver to get shot was him reaching for his waistband because his shorts were slipping. Not having an air rifle and after having a few drinks maybe pointing it out a window.

ETA: There is nothing to argue over. The video clearly shows that. Brailsford stood before the man and a jury of his peers said that the shots were good but that isn't what some ATS members are talking about when they say that it shouldn't have gotten to that point. At least that is how I'm seeing it.

a reply to: daskakik
Crap. Wrong thread. I've been looking for meteors.


In regard to this thread:
I can see how the decision was reached, but I'm not at all sure that the killing was appropriate. The victim was obviously impaired.

originally posted by: notsure1
I saw an interview with the wife yesterday, she said her 8 year old daughter tried to choke her self out at school because she wanted to be with her dad

They also said the DOJ was looking into charging him federally. So lets keep the outrage up and maybe we will seee some justice.

What about the cop who screamed out (for what reason was he screaming at the guy? He used a calm tone with the woman and that worked out better, didn't it?) those ridiculous commands? I think that guy is the cause of how the whole thing ended up.