Police guns down man after he tried to flee.

[oxmixmudd]

He won't. I've asked him multiple times and the best he can come up with is that I'm crazy and paranoid, followed by basically: "but, but DA Howard said it!" I actually came here looking to have nice debate about this, but I should have known better. As soon as a substantial challenge to their ideas is presented it's two responses: (1) crickets, or else (2) insult the opponent and then repeat the claim. It's almost like they don't realize, that they're making the claim that the shooting was unjustified -- so the buren of proof is on them. They made some initial arguments that weren't bad, but I presented arguments against their point of view. And they aren't even trying to combat my argument. Oh well, I should have known this was more about verbal virtuosity and insulting people they don't like than actually trying to have a debate.

I answered you to the extent your accusations and hyperbole had any actual correlation to what I've said. The rest, the stuff you just made up out of whole cloth that are irrelevant to the points I'm trying to discuss - I just ignored that stuff. Sometimes when people are so completely out in left field that it would take hours of careful wording to correct (and which they'd just ignore anyway), I just don't even waste my time.

[rogue06]

The evidence that he was kicked that I am aware of - so far - is the the still from the video the DA presented.

IOW you are mindlessly and unquestioningly accepting the word of someone who other DAs have been highly critical of for his handling of the case. Who the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI - who have a sterling reputation for honesty here) are aghast over what he was doing. Who is in trouble himself and likely to lose re-election and appears to be pandering to the mob to improve his chances.

There is a reason that he released a still shot rather than the video. I mean, they've released the videos for everything else.

[rogue06]

And therein lies the problem. Apparently you and many of your fellow officers have little regard for human life, and that lack of regard seems to be more prevelant when it comes to black lives.

Yeah. That's it. That's the obvious reason. It couldn't possibly be because they (including all of the black officers) are the ones who know the rules for such encounters.


So is the reason that the huge number of Atlanta police officers, who are mostly black, calling out sick to protest this hate blacks as well?

[JimL]

Yeah. That's it. That's the obvious reason. It couldn't possibly be because they (including all of the black officers) are the ones who know the rules for such encounters.


So is the reason that the huge number of Atlanta police officers, who are mostly black, calling out sick to protest this hate blacks as well?

The cop who shot that man in the back had very little regard for that mans life, and I don't care if you want to argue that there was a fine line of legality that the officer didn't cross or not, an issue for which I disagree, but there was no need to kill that man and that he did tells me that the cop is trigger happy and and has little if any regard for human life. And if a huge amount of cops agree with what he did, then that tells me that the system needs to change.

[oxmixmudd]

IOW you are mindlessly and unquestioningly accepting the word of someone who other DAs have been highly critical of for his handling of the case. Who the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI - who have a sterling reputation for honesty here) are aghast over what he was doing. Who is in trouble himself and likely to lose re-election and appears to be pandering to the mob to improve his chances.

There is a reason that he released a still shot rather than the video. I mean, they've released the videos for everything else.

IF and when actual evidence surfaces the alleged kick is not real, I will discuss that. At this point that is what one of the charges directly addresses. And there is no reason at the current time other than conservative and typically racist spin directed at the integrity of a black DA to doubt it.

I will not comment on an allegation driven by that kind of sourcing until and unless there are resl and verifyable facts to support it.

You are asking me to believe the DA is flagrantly lying. I will not give place to that without hard evidence.

[oxmixmudd]

The cop who shot that man in the back had very little regard for that mans life, and I don't care if you want to argue that there was a fine line of legality that the officer didn't cross or not, an issue for which I disagree, but there was no need to kill that man and that he did tells me that the cop is trigger happy and and has little if any regard for human life. And if a huge amount of cops agree with what he did, then that tells me that the system needs to change.

Jim, it is more complicated than that. When a person pulls a weapon on an officer, they have very little time to react, not enough time to tell the difference between a BB gun replica and the real thing. In this case, the fellow had a stolen Taser, and had been checked for weapons. He also was not aiming any weapon when shot. So there are good reasons he did not have a reason to shoot

But demanding in every altercation an officer can fully verify what is pointed at them before they defend themselves is also untenable. That is why you dont resist arrest and follow their orders.

But that is also why breaches of trust like what happened with floyd are so heinous and cant be tolerated. And the systemic abuse of black people by the police has destroyed the trust necessary to avoid further tradjedy.

[JimL]

Jim, it is more complicated than that. When a person pulls a weapon on an officer, they have very little time to react, not enough time to tell the difference between a BB gun replica and the real thing. In this case, the fellow had a stolen Taser, and had been checked for weapons. He also was not aiming any weapon when shot. So there are good reasons he did not have a reason to shoot

But demanding in every altercation an officer can fully verify what is pointed at them before they defend themselves is also untenable. That is why you dont resist arrest and follow their orders.

But that is also why breaches of trust like what happened with floyd are so heinous and cant be tolerated. And the systemic abuse of black people by the police has destroyed the trust necessary to avoid further tradjedy.

Oh I agree, but I'm speaking specifically of this case in which the officer knew he was not armed with anything but a taser and was not being charged with a serious offense. There was just no good reason to kill that man. They would have caught up with him eventually, at home or work, whatever, and even if they didn't it was not worth the taking of his life.

[oxmixmudd]

Oh I agree, but I'm speaking specifically of this case in which the officer knew he was not armed with anything but a taser and was not being charged with a serious offense. There was just no good reason to kill that man. They would have caught up with him eventually, at home or work, whatever, and even if they didn't it was not worth the taking of his life.

I tend to agree. But this case is not as clear cut as Floyd or Arbery. And it is instructive the same sort of excuse making was applied to both Floyd and Arbery in this forum. But as ominous as that fact is, for me I have to be a bit more reserved in this case until more facts are available. In this case it is conceivable evidence could emerge that will at least partially excuse the officer.

[shunyadragon]

Police not being held accountable for their violent acts and murder extent beyond just blacks, but nonetheless it is best not to ignore the historical epidemic of violence and murder of blacks by law enforcement and people of authority.

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/daniel-shaver-killing/594091/

He Killed an Unarmed Man, Then Claimed Disability
The latest twist in the police shooting of Daniel Shaver

Conor Friedersdorf

City leaders in Mesa, Arizona, operate a municipality where the interests of police officers are valued more highly than ordinary citizens, including those the police have wronged.

Two years ago, I wrote about Daniel Shaver, an unarmed 26-year-old who in 2016 was shot to death in a hotel hallway while begging for his life. The killer, Mesa Police Officer Philip Brailsford, was put on trial for murder. Jurors were not allowed to know that he had scratched “You’re • Edited by a Moderator •” into his service weapon. He was acquitted of murder and manslaughter, despite video of as chilling and egregious a police killing as I’ve ever seen.

Get the news, without the noise.

Brailsford was at least fired from his job as a police officer. But that isn’t how the story ends.

Laney Sweet, Shaver’s widow, wrote about her family’s suffering on Facebook. She related that their 8-year-old daughter was so despondent that she tried to choke herself at school, then declared when taken to a local hospital that “I want to be with Dad.” The family filed a wrongful-death lawsuit. They’ve yet to be compensated by the city or the police department.

As for the cop who pulled the trigger, he was “temporarily rehired by the department so he could apply for a monthly pension,” The Arizona Republic reported this month. In 2018, he was reinstated for 42 days and applied for accidental disability. “An accidental disability is one that occurred while the employee was on the clock and permanently prevents the employee from doing his or her job,” the newspaper explained, adding that the pension in question “totals more than $30,000 annually.” A widowed single mother could use a payout like that.

And the nature of the cop’s disability claim? According to an investigation by the local ABC affiliate, Brailsford said the incident in which he had shot Shaver had given him PTSD. “He’ll get a neutral reference if a future employer calls Mesa,” it reported. “And he’s not willing to talk about how his termination for killing an unarmed man turned into a check for life.”

That’s right: He killed an unarmed man, then claimed associated trauma to get a paycheck for life. In this effort, he was successful.

The people of Mesa could recall the city officials who enabled this miscarriage of justice. Absent that, they should not expect police accountability in the future. Brailsford could sign that pension over to the widow and child of the man he killed. Absent that, it’s hard to see how he achieves redemption.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to [email protected].

© Copyright Original Source

[Mountain Man]

It was not a lethal weapon MM. It was not a gun.

Was it necessarily obvious in the heat of the moment that it wasn't a deadly weapon? Try to think about it from the officer's perspective: a violent suspect turns and points a gun shaped weapon at you. Do you assume it's not a deadly weapon, or do you defend yourself?

Second, watch the video RumTum posted earlier that has a clip where the DA just weeks ago in another case described a taser as a potentially deadly weapon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvaHGQS5vqY

Of course now he's contradicting himself saying that a taser doesn't pose a threat. That's in addition to other illogical leap's like his claim that Brooks wasn't a threat because his aim was poor, but if a taser doesn't pose a threat then his aim is irrelevant. His poor aim would only be relevant if the taser did otherwise present a threat.

[JimL]

Was it necessarily obvious in the heat of the moment that it wasn't a deadly weapon? Try to think about it from the officer's perspective: a violent suspect turns and points a gun shaped weapon at you. Do you assume it's not a deadly weapon, or do you defend yourself?

Second, watch the video RumTum posted earlier that has a clip where the DA just weeks ago in another case described a taser as a potentially deadly weapon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvaHGQS5vqY

Of course now he's contradicting himself saying that a taser doesn't pose a threat. That's in addition to other illogical leap's like his claim that Brooks wasn't a threat because his aim was poor, but if a taser doesn't pose a threat then his aim is irrelevant. His poor aim would only be relevant if the taser did otherwise present a threat.

See if you can stop yourself from misrepresenting facts, MM. The police had already frisked the deceased and so knew he didn't have a gun. Certainly you know that by now.

[Mountain Man]

Police not being held accountable for their violent acts and murder extent beyond just blacks, but nonetheless it is best not to ignore the historical epidemic of violence and murder of blacks by law enforcement and people of authority.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...illing/594091/

The article claims, "[The officer] was acquitted of murder and manslaughter, despite video of as chilling and egregious a police killing as I’ve ever seen."

I disagree with the reporter's description. I just watched the video where the officer repeatedly warned the suspect not to reach his hands behind him or put them at his sides for any reason or he would be shot. The suspect indicated that he understood the officer's instructions. The suspect was then instructed to crawl towards the officer. The suspect begins crawling then stops in a kneeling position and quickly turns and reaches his right hand towards his waist. By all appearances, he was reaching for a weapon. That's when the officer opened fire. The officer's actions were neither chilling nor egregious. It's bad reporting like this that his created our current climate of anti-police sentiments.

[oxmixmudd]

See if you can stop yourself from misrepresenting facts, MM. The police had already frisked the deceased and so knew he didn't have a gun. Certainly you know that by now.

Black men being shown to be innocent of an accusation hasn't made any difference with MM's accusations in any other of these threads, why should be make a difference in this thread?

[oxmixmudd]

Was it necessarily obvious in the heat of the moment that it wasn't a deadly weapon? Try to think about it from the officer's perspective: a violent suspect turns and points a gun shaped weapon at you. Do you assume it's not a deadly weapon, or do you defend yourself?

Second, watch the video RumTum posted earlier that has a clip where the DA just weeks ago in another case described a taser as a potentially deadly weapon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvaHGQS5vqY

Of course now he's contradicting himself saying that a taser doesn't pose a threat. That's in addition to other illogical leap's like his claim that Brooks wasn't a threat because his aim was poor, but if a taser doesn't pose a threat then his aim is irrelevant. His poor aim would only be relevant if the taser did otherwise present a threat.

It was a bright yellow taser, taken FROM them, and he'd been searched for other weapons already.

[Cow Poke]

Not an answer to my question, but not surprised by your dishonesty.

So now, NOT answering a question the way you want it answered is "dishonesty"?

I musta really huwt yor widdle feewins!