Arizona Cop Acquitted For Killing Man Crawling While Begging For His Life

[x-ray peat]

I was mocking davidfoster but I blew my cover with the alluh akbar.

Merry christmas try not to get shot

Thought that was pretty uncharacteristic of you to side with "the Man." lol

 

[DaveFoster]

I also heard on the Carolla podcast that the victim was intoxicated, which could easily explain him reaching for his shorts.

He lied to the officer, then.

Wouldn't matter if they had used the appropriate protocol.
As far as I'm concerned, this incident was just a bad as the Walter Scott shooting. There is a reason that shooting/stabbing someone in the back has historically been seen as a shameful thing to do. Shooting someone who is several feet away on their hands and knees is equally disgusting. But I suppose that's a matter of opinion.

Sociopaths feign vulnerability.

 

[sladerunner69]

To be fair, you're referring to a criminal organization by any definition (monopoly on violence, theft (civil asset forfeiture), legal deception, etc), so this practice would fall pretty far down that list.

Nope, "criminal organizations", by definition, don't have a "monopoly" on coercive force (or "violence"). That would be the state, and a crime can't be committed without a state (laws).

Theft and "civil asset forfeiture" are demonstrably separate- looking at the meaning of "forfeit", as opposed to "theft" which is an unlawful seizure of a person's property. Theft cannot be committed without laws, in a state of nature there are no laws and therefore no crimes, except for that of a fundamentally arbitrary code of ethics. Or if you are a Kantian then the morale code is objective but still an argument would inevitably entail some degree of interpretation.

Taxation is therefore not theft, because taxation is an inherent function of the state, and theft being separate as it encompasses any such action not authorized by the state.
Taxation can arguably be called immoral but not theft. In the same way that theft could be called morale but not lawful.


I would like to remind anyone being moved by this footage that while disturbing, it is still an anecdote. The state is obligated to police/protect a country of well over 300 million inhabitants- many of whom are addicted to a culture of welfare, drugs, and violence. Many others are illegal immigrants formerly from violent cultures. The police department is significantly understaffed in major cities, hence the big pensions and lower standards. Occasionally an unfortunate, brutal, or malevolent incident/ tragedy will occur. It is inevitable.
Logically, one such incident does not equate to a pattern or an epidemic. Too many people, too often (generally with poor math backgrounds) will attribute one or two or a few incidents as indicative of a pattern. Looking at yearly killed by law enforcement seems high, until you look at the years number of violent crimes. The date seems to say that officers spare the lives of criminals, although certain situations such as this should not be tolerated by the judicial system.

 

[burtlancast]

I was mocking davidfoster but I blew my cover with the alluh akbar.

Merry christmas try not to get shot

Still trolling?
What's your cover for your #23 post, when Dave wasn't even here?

I think i'm gonna have to bodyslam you and lie on top of you until you choke.

 

[Sepulchrave]

Let's all support Daniel Shaver's family.

https://www.gofundme.com/danielmemorialfund

 

[burtlancast]

There's a rumor going around that the jurors never saw the body cam during the trial, which is false.

What happened at the trial is the prosecutors went with a more difficult charge to prove than they should have, which allowed the murderous cop to walk free (barring appeal).

Maybe foul play involved?

That would not be the first time prosecutors are in cahoots with the defense when it comes to prosecute their own law enforcement.

 

[theLaw]

He lied to the officer, then.
Sociopaths feign vulnerability.

And the officers lied to him with their impossible commands, but they had guns pointed at his head with the intent to use them.

I get your point about sociopaths, but police use profiling for a reason.

 

[theLaw]

Nope, "criminal organizations", by definition, don't have a "monopoly" on coercive force (or "violence"). That would be the state, and a crime can't be committed without a state (laws).

That's an interesting perspective. The only hole in that argument is when the law is broken by the government only to be adjudicated and found guilty by the same government. In that case, they can actually be criminal by definition.

Theft and "civil asset forfeiture" are demonstrably separate- looking at the meaning of "forfeit", as opposed to "theft" which is an unlawful seizure of a person's property. Theft cannot be committed without laws, in a state of nature there are no laws and therefore no crimes, except for that of a fundamentally arbitrary code of ethics. Or if you are a Kantian then the morale code is objective but still an argument would inevitably entail some degree of interpretation.

You want to slide down a semantic rabbit-hole here, but we both have lives, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Taxation is therefore not theft, because taxation is an inherent function of the state, and theft being separate as it encompasses any such action not authorized by the state.
Taxation can arguably be called immoral but not theft. In the same way that theft could be called morale but not lawful.

Refer to my first point above.

I would like to remind anyone being moved by this footage that while disturbing, it is still an anecdote. The state is obligated to police/protect a country of well over 300 million inhabitants- many of whom are addicted to a culture of welfare, drugs, and violence. Many others are illegal immigrants formerly from violent cultures. The police department is significantly understaffed in major cities, hence the big pensions and lower standards. Occasionally an unfortunate, brutal, or malevolent incident/ tragedy will occur. It is inevitable.
Logically, one such incident does not equate to a pattern or an epidemic. Too many people, too often (generally with poor math backgrounds) will attribute one or two or a few incidents as indicative of a pattern. Looking at yearly killed by law enforcement seems high, until you look at the years number of violent crimes. The date seems to say that officers spare the lives of criminals, although certain situations such as this should not be tolerated by the judicial system.

That's a nice straw-man you built there, but I don't see a consensus for that argument on this thread. It appears that they failed to give him direct commands that he could reasonably follow, thus creating a confusing state of escalation where the end result was a man losing his life.

Here are the commands :

"lie on the ground,"

"put both hands on top of your head and interlace your fingers,"

"take your feet and cross your left foot over your right foot,"

"keep your feet crossed,"

"put both hands flat in front of you" (while they're on his head and interlaced?),

"push yourself to a kneeling position"

"put both hands in the air,"

"crawl towards me" (with his hands in the air?),

"stop," "crawl," "keep your legs crossed" (while crawling?),

"put your hands in the air,"

"keep your legs crossed,"

"crawl" (so he's supposed to crawl again with his hands in the air and his legs crossed).

 

[theLaw]

There's a rumor going around that the jurors never saw the body cam during the trial, which is false.

What happened at the trial is the prosecutors went with a more difficult charge to prove than they should have, which allowed the murderous cop to walk free (barring appeal).

Maybe foul play involved?

That would not be the first time prosecutors are in cahoots with the defense when it comes to prosecute their own law enforcement.

There was a bunch of dirt behind the scenes on this case with the cops protecting their own. Carolla's Reasonable Doubts podcasts with Geragos go through many of the details over the last few months.

Also, people may have been confused about the video. I think it was the "you're ****88" on the side of the rifle that the jurors were unable to see.

 

[burtlancast]

Joe Rogan is telling everyone the jurors never saw the video.
Missing the point as always.

 

[theLaw]

Joe Rogan is telling everyone the jurors never saw the video.
Missing the point as always.

You're correct. I just watched it and Rogan clearly says that the jury weren't allowed to view the video, which is false.

I'm wondering if he got it mixed up with the fact that the video was not released to the public during the trial, which is what Geragos was so upset about.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

He lied to the officer, then.
Sociopaths feign vulnerability.

He was so obviously faking it what with the crying and begging for his life.

I'm glad we have officers on the force that can see through that subterfuge.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Still trolling?
What's your cover for your #23 post, when Dave wasn't even here?

I think i'm gonna have to bodyslam you and lie on top of you until you choke.

You mean you're not gonna make me crawl on my knees with my hands up before shooting me in rhe back?

Tisk tisk getting rusty

 

[burtlancast]

Arrest Retired Sgt. Charles Langley

 

[Sepulchrave]

The POS ran away to the Philippines. If anyone motivated is interested in a vacation there, a bribe to the right government official may reveal his whereabouts.

 

[Ideonaut]

Watch the video.

WATCH: Daniel Shaver Police Shooting Video Released


Can you believe that a jury voted to acquit this cop? There is something deeply rotten about American society.

You got that right. No justice. Look at how Hillary gets off scott-free for all her crimes, and the creeps who did 911 (who deserve to have their shitty little criminal country nuked), etc. The people in control think they can do whatever they damn well please, no matter how criminal.

 

[DaveFoster]

He was so obviously faking it what with the crying and begging for his life.

I'm glad we have officers on the force that can see through that subterfuge.

Because subterfuge should be obvious. It's not relevant whether or not Mr. Shaver had any ill intent, and his death should have been avoided.

The officer used ambiguous language, but he didn't shoot Mr. Shaver until he reached toward his hip, where the officer allowed Mr. Shaver to fail his unreasonable commands. If Mr. Shaver was intoxicated, he shouldn't have lied. Officer Brailsford and the supervisor obviously used ineffective and dangerous protocol, and maybe Brailsford should be charged for man slaughter, but there's no evidence that Brailsford wanted to kill this man.

Still trolling?
What's your cover for your #23 post, when Dave wasn't even here?

I think i'm gonna have to bodyslam you and lie on top of you until you choke.

Maybe you should check out these guys for similar videos without context: https://blacklivesmatter.com/

 

[x-ray peat]

You got that right. No justice. and the creeps who did 911 (who deserve to have their shitty little criminal country nuked), etc. The people in control think they can do whatever they damn well please, no matter how criminal.

You're so right... but they should at least try to save the Sistine Chapel, and maybe remove all that Nazi gold first.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

You're so right... but they should at least try to save the Sistine Chapel, and maybe remove all that Nazi gold first.

You never bleeping stop do you

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

@DaveFoster are you one of those alt righters?