Posted on 12/10/2017 7:10:13 AM PST by JP1201
If you have the stomach for it, I want you to watch one of the most outrageous and infuriating videos Ive ever seen. It shows the police shooting of Daniel Shaver in Mesa, Arizona. He was crawling on his hands and knees, crying, and begging police not to shoot him. An officer shot him anyway:
The Washington Posts account is decent, but you have to watch the video truly grasp the strangeness of the requests:
In fact, the Post actually sugarcoats the encounter. At one point an officer tells him do not put your hands down for any reason, even saying, If you think youre going to fall, you better fall on your face. Then he says, Crawl towards me. How he can crawl without putting his hands down, I dont know. As the sobbing man crawls, he reaches back towards his pants (perhaps to pull them up) and is immediately shot dead. He had no weapon. He had done nothing wrong. And now hes dead.
Essentially, what the police told an innocent, law-abiding, intoxicated American was this: Follow my highly-specific, very strange instructions or die. There was no need to make him crawl. The police were in command of the situation. At no point is there a visible weapon. I have seen soldiers deal with al Qaeda terrorists with more professionalism and poise. When a man is prone, his hands are visible, and your gun is trained upon him, he is in your power. At trial, the officer testified that he though the suspect was reaching for his gun, and that if he had a chance to do things over, hed make the same decision again. In other words, he presented the classic defense. He was afraid, so he fired.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
My gut feeling on this.
A cop with his operator AR, spent weeks playing operator in the desert, now has a chance to try it out.
Wrong moron. I never defended him nor did I say he was innocent. Unfortunately you are incapable of understanding comments. The only thing I argued against were the claims his commands were incomprehensible and impossible to execute. I still contend that those claims are false. Furthermore, I clearly stated he has no business in law enforcement. In addition I stated that I was shocked, or perhaps I used the word surprised, that he was found not guilty, but that they had. I never said I agreed or disagreed with his form of communication, other than it was clear instructions, as the girl followed them without any problem. I don't know if he was following some kind of protocol from above in the communication technique he employed. So is he solely to blame or does the blame lay with his training? That I don't know, but I think the team needs better training, and that training should include how they follow the techniques they are taught, if these were not the techniques that were taught.
Just a clue, I am not in the least bit intimidated by you, and I certainly am not impressed by you. I will always state my opinion, regardless of how many people disagree with my opinion. It is my right and I will exercise it. When I think I communicated more out of emotion, than with intellect I will admit I am wrong due to the fact my response really stemmed from emotion rather than from a considered intellectual process. In this case I was not speaking from an emotional response because I didn't offer up an opinion on anything definitive except for the claims that his commands were confusing and incapable of being followed. I found those claims to be false, and I still do. Did I personally think they were appropriate? No. Did I think I would have found him innocent had I sat on the jury? Probably not, but it depends if something else was brought up in the trial that we have not been told, that might make me reconsider.
Let it go & move along now.
In other words, never communicate with me again and I will extend the same courtesy to you. You can have the last word if you must, however, I will ignore it.
Whatever, blather on copiously as you will. Idiot.
“He wasn’t sentenced at all. “.......
Seems to differ with what the liberal judge sentence was. Too damn many liberal judges IMO, the constitution needs to be revised so we can be rid of the bleeding hearts “Legally”. Terms limits for them as well.
The youre not a cop putting his life on the line and so you cant pass judgment argument is pure BS! Our society continually has professionals judged by non-professionals. As a physician, my medical license and livelihood can be taken away by a malpractice jury composed of non-physicians who have never diagnosed or treated a patient in their lifetimes. Why should cops - who have the ultimate authority to end someones life - in this case for not being able to comply with (even defenders admissions) contradictory orders in a bizarre game of Simon Says Youre Dead - be held to a lesser standard. Hope the fine taxpayers of Mesa AZ enjoy their mileage rate going up after what will no doubt be a several million dollar settlement.
Never said that at all.
Pardon the typo: should be millage rate
Essentially, what the police told an innocent, law-abiding, intoxicated American was this: Follow my highly-specific, very strange instructions or die.
The other cops in the hallway can't even follow the cops directions (I said PULL!).
It the cop hollering instructions the one who shot?
Belated thanks - I did try to count the cop cars but ran out of fingers, toes and abacus beads ... actually I counted 52!
These guys had three hostages from a bank robbery, dumped a couple, maybe one shot and used the last one as a human shield (by the guy who walked away) who died (the last hostage) of bullet wounds - the chase was an hour plus but jeez it did look like a hollywood/Blues Brothers take.
This was in Stockton, CA which I never knew had a seaport some 70 miles east from the Pacific - lots of “migrants” and a high crime area - again thanks - learned some things yesterday between PC lockups. Sigh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.