Daniel Shavers killer walks free.

[Leonhard]

National Review nails it.

Langley tells Shaver to keep his legs crossed and push himself up into a kneeling position. As Shaver pushes himself up, his legs come uncrossed, prompting the officer to scream at him.

“I’m sorry,” Shaver says, placing his hands near his waist, prompting another round of screaming.

“You do that again, we’re shooting you, do you understand?” Langley yells.

“Please do not shoot me,” Shaver begs, his hands up straight in the air.

At the officer’s command, Shaver then crawls down the hallway, sobbing. At one point, he reaches back — possibly to pull up his shorts — and Brailsford opens fire, striking Shaver five times.

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 you’re 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 don’t 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 he’s 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.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...-daniel-shaver

[Cerebrum123]

I can't forget the guy who managed to delay the judging of Walter Scotts killer. "I'll never convict a police officer."

That guy is nuts. Based on what I've read so far, it sounds like this police officer was nuts* too.

*Or evil, can be hard to distinguish the two at times.

Edit: I believe you meant flabbergasted in your OP.

[Mountain Man]

The Bible allows the death penalty just for (recklessly) letting out a dangerous ox that kills someone. This cop toyed with the man, then said that he was going to kill him, and then killed him. Not a hard case at all.

Not only that, but you can clearly see in the video that the victim's hand doesn't have any gun in it.

First of all, you're trying to read the officer's mind. Unless he tells us himself, it's impossible to know what he was thinking or what he intended.

Secondly, it may be clear in the video that the suspect doesn't have a weapon, but it wasn't necessarily clear to the officer in the heat of the moment.

Based on what I've read, I'm not convinced the officer committed murder. That's not to say he was otherwise in the right.

[Obsidian]

You haven't even watched the video. Stop commenting on something about which you're clueless.

[Mountain Man]

You haven't even watched the video. Stop commenting on something about which you're clueless.

This is exactly the sort of emotionalism I'm trying to avoid. But am I wrong? Can you really know with certainty what the officer was thinking and what his intentions were? Can you know with certainty that it was clear to him in the moment that the suspect was unarmed? Is there no room at all in your mind for reasonable doubt?

[Cow Poke]

They lost my vote when they shouted for him to crawl toward them. I see no point in that whatsoever. He should have been on the ground, face down, arms and legs out. Period.

[Obsidian]

But am I wrong? Can you really know with certainty what the officer was thinking and what his intentions were?

According to the Bible, he is guilty even if he acted recklessly. So yeah, you are wrong.

I don't care what his intentions were. I know that his intention was to kill the man in front of him, and I know that he didn't have any proper justification. Therefore, murder.

[Cow Poke]

If you're going to solicit my input in a thread, please send me a PM so I see it.

Yeah, me too, please.

[Mountain Man]

I don't care what his intentions were.

Too bad, because that makes all the difference in this case.

[Obsidian]

If you intend to kill someone, that is murder -- unless you have a valid justification. (Under the Bible, intent isn't even required, but obviously there was intent to kill here so that distinction is irrelevant.) You don't grasp the law. And you don't grasp the facts, either. And you are condoning wickedness.

[Mountain Man]

If you intend to kill someone, that is murder -- unless you have a valid justification. (Under the Bible, intent isn't even required, but obviously there was intent to kill here so that distinction is irrelevant.) You don't grasp the law. And you don't grasp the facts, either. And you are condoning wickedness.

I haven't condoned anything. Of course the officer intended to shoot the suspect, but that's true even in cases of justified killing, so it's not the issue, nor is it sufficient in and of itself to convict him of murder. And FYI, Old Testament law does distinguish between intents. For example, Exodus 21:12-14, "Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death. But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place to which he may flee. But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him by cunning, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die."

[Terraceth]

This is exactly the sort of emotionalism I'm trying to avoid. But am I wrong? Can you really know with certainty what the officer was thinking and what his intentions were? Can you know with certainty that it was clear to him in the moment that the suspect was unarmed? Is there no room at all in your mind for reasonable doubt?

I just find it a bit problematic that you're making arguments on a subject that, by your own admission, you've refused to look at some important evidence regarding. The video's only 5 minutes as well, it's not like it'd take that much time to watch.

[Obsidian]

Of course the officer intended to shoot the suspect, but that's true even in cases of justified killing, so it's not the issue, nor is it sufficient in and of itself to convict him of murder.

Unless he has a lawful defense, then it is. Irrationally dreaming up that he might be under attack -- especially when he has put himself in that ridiculous situation -- is not a lawful defense.

And FYI, Old Testament law does distinguish between intents.

The difference between first and second-degree murder is not biblical. But that's pretty much irrelevant to this case, anyway, because the cop clearly intended to kill the man, and he was only charged with second, regardless.

Numbers 35:20-21
But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die; or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him. But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait, or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, SEEING HIM NOT, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was NOT his enemy, NEITHER sought his harm: then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments[.]

You don't know the law. You don't know the facts. And you don't know the Bible. You need to just quit talking.

[One Bad Pig]

I admit to being emotionally affected by this. I'm an autist. In a high stress situation like that, I'd try my best to follow orders but I'd get confused quickly. I wouldn't do any better, and apparently I'd get shot. I'd die in that situation. So if I go to the US, apparently I should stay as far away from cops as I can?

Please, PLEASE do not take this incident as any sort of norm. It's not - otherwise, it wouldn't be news. Be respectful, follow orders as best you can, and make no sudden moves, and odds are excellent you'll be fine.

But isn't this officer above reproach? He only got fired because of politics.

No, this officer was not above reproach - and I have no idea how you can think from your far remove that he only got fired because of politics.

Can we really kid ourselves that this cop would be fired if he hadn't been wearing a body cam? I just don't get how he can stay on the force for as long as he did.

How can someone not be fired, as a cop, for writing "You're <explitive>" on his rifle. That's not exactly the mindset you'd want to see in an officer.

Not exactly, but I don't know the situation, so I'm not going to speculate.

[Mountain Man]

Unless he has a lawful defense, then it is. Irrationally dreaming up that he might be under attack -- especially when he has put himself in that ridiculous situation -- is not a lawful defense.



The difference between first and second-degree murder is not biblical. But that's pretty much irrelevant to this case, anyway, because the cop clearly intended to kill the man, and he was only charged with second, regardless.

Numbers 35:20-21
But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die; or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him. But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait, or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, SEEING HIM NOT, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was NOT his enemy, NEITHER sought his harm: then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments[.]

You don't know the law. You don't know the facts. And you don't know the Bible. You need to just quit talking.

You're being very emotional, and I wonder if you need to step away from the thread for a while and cool off?

Claiming that the officer "[dreamed] up that he might be under attack" doesn't match the facts. The suspect reached for his waist band. It really happened. The officer didn't dream that up, and this fact is enough to introduce reasonable doubt.

You can insist all you want that the officer was just looking for an excuse to pull the trigger, but again, unless he confesses it, that's just you playing mind-reader.

Where an I wrong on these points? Please answer rationally instead of popping off with emotionalism.

As for the Numbers quotation, I'm not sure what you're getting at, because it says exactly the same thing as the Exodus passage that I quoted in that it distinguishes between malicious premeditated killing, and accidental or what we might call "heat of passion" killings. Basically, your claim that intent is irrelevant as far as the Bible is concerned is wrong.