Daniel Shaver shooting

[Smitty-48]

I don’t know the kid.
No idea if he’s a psycho path.
But when you fuck up at the job you are trained to do and somebody dies, legal consequences should happen.

Same for a cop. Same for a doctor.

There were legal consequences, the most consequential of them all, he was charged with murder, there was a trial, and he was aquitted by a jury of his peers, wasn't a hung jury, they found him not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Legal consequences; *check*

So that's done and done, anything else?

[nmoore63]

I don’t know the kid.
No idea if he’s a psycho path.
But when you fuck up at the job you are trained to do and somebody dies, legal consequences should happen.

Same for a cop. Same for a doctor.

There were legal consequences, the most consequential of them all, he was charged with murder, there was a trial, and he was aquitted by a jury of his peers, wasn't a hung jury, they found him not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Legal consequences; *check*

So that's done and done, anything else?

Hence where I attempted to move the conversation to discussing the nature of the trial.

[Smitty-48]

Hence where I attempted to move the conversation to discussing the nature of the trial.

Sorry, I must have missed that, what with all the people gumming up the thread pointlessly posting ad homs, there wasn't a mistrial, but assuming we're making an appeal as the prosecution, what is your case to overrule based on the nature of the trial?

[SuburbanFarmer]

I don’t know the kid.
No idea if he’s a psycho path.
But when you fuck up at the job you are trained to do and somebody dies, legal consequences should happen.

Same for a cop. Same for a doctor.

There were legal consequences, the most consequential of them all, he was charged with murder, there was a trial, and he was aquitted by a jury of his peers, wasn't a hung jury, they found him not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Legal consequences; *check*

So that's done and done, anything else?

No. They found a “reasonable doubt” that he was guilty. That is not the same as “not guilty beyond reasonable doubt”.

[Fife]

*Legal definitions* upcoming, I'm sure they are available on the google.

The *burden of proof* is on the state. The *standard of proof* is *beyond reasonable doubt.* The state must prove each and every *element* of a crime as set out in a *statute.* The defendant doesn't bear the burden to prove anything at all; unless the defendant has undertaken some *affirmative defense.*

The state has to convince the jury that it has presented enough evidence to prove that each and every element of a charge under a statute is established beyond reasonable doubt that the element has been established to get a conviction.

I don't know the details of this particular verdict; but it appears from the press splash that the jury found that proof of guilt of each and every element beyond reasonable doubt wasn't given by the state.

[Speaker to Animals]

Except there exists no reasonable doubt about whether he committed the crime as the law is written. That was murder. At that point, he should have been required to mount an affirmative defense by introducing new facts that mitigate the act or recast it in a different light. That he shot dead an innocent man on the ground begging for his life is not in dispute. The law covers that: murder. That's not manslaughter. It wasn't an accident or a mistake.

The burden of proof ought to have been on that cunt police officer to show that he was justified in executing an innocent man laying on the ground begging for his life.

[LVH2]

The 66,000 non combatants in Iraq were not the enemy, and the Americans who killed them did not intend to murder them with malice, you have to make split second decisions, under extreme pressure, and you don't have hindsight to make judgements, and when you're in an environment where everyone is armed to the teeth, and you can't tell who is who in the moment, shit happens, that's just how it goes.

Sometimes you're too aggressive, sometimes you're not aggressive enough, but you can't know for sure, you just have to make a call, one way or the other, it's the quick and the dead, sometimes you make the right call, sometimes you don't.

The problem is this premise that people are trying to shoot cops left and right and therefore they are justified in killing people, pets, the elderly, etc as soon as they feel a little scared. In actuality, something like 50 cops per year are shot/stabbed and killed. It's not much of a risk. Many more die driving. If we want to save cops lives by letting them puss out, we should say they don't have to speed and run lights en route to emergencies.

Considering the cops kill well over 20 civilians for every one who kills them, it is us who should be afraid in these situations. They have little to worry about and are trained. We have a lot to worry about and are untrained. They are in control, armed and issuing the commands, with armed, trained partners. We are scared, in an unfamiliar situation and maybe drunk. They are the killers over 95% of the time. But if they kill us out of unjustified fear, it's kosher.

Moreover, their job is to deal with people who are intoxicated, crazy, stupid, belligerent, etc. They should know how to deal with people who are erratic, belligerent, non-compliant, or panicked.

Miraculously, postmen can work without shooting every dog who might maybe possibly bite them. EMTs can deal with drunks and crazies without shooting them. Teachers can deal with gang members without shooting them every time they fail to follow instructions or reach in their pocket or get belligerent.

Police are only in marginally more danger than these people, yet we give them license to kill anybody who, as DSL says, screws up a game of simon says.

They get 80k/year on a high school diploma and retire at 50 because they are paid to take risks to keep us safe. If that bargain is off, pay the legions of fifes accordingly. If it's on, change the laws and training accordingly.

[Smitty-48]

*Legal definitions* upcoming, I'm sure they are available on the google.

The *burden of proof* is on the state. The *standard of proof* is *beyond reasonable doubt.* The state must prove each and every *element* of a crime as set out in a *statute.* The defendant doesn't bear the burden to prove anything at all; unless the defendant has undertaken some *affirmative defense.*

The state has to convince the jury that it has presented enough evidence to prove that each and every element of a charge under a statute is established beyond reasonable doubt that the element has been established to get a conviction.

I don't know the details of this particular verdict; but it appears from the press splash that the jury found that proof of guilt of each and every element beyond reasonable doubt wasn't given by the state.

Indeed, and I didn't follow the trial at all, so if there is a case for an appeal, someone's gonna have to lay that out for me.

Sounds like there's very little chance of the State of Arizona overruling the jury here, realistically, you'd have to charge him with something else, like a Federal Civil Rights violation.

But if you call for that, then so much for "muh States Rights" then.

[Fife]

Except there exists no reasonable doubt about whether he committed the crime as the law is written. That was murder. At that point, he should have been required to mount an affirmative defense by introducing new facts that mitigate the act or recast it in a different light. That he shot dead an innocent man on the ground begging for his life is not in dispute. The law covers that: murder. That's not manslaughter. It wasn't an accident or a mistake.

The burden of proof ought to have been on that cunt police officer to show that he was justified in executing an innocent man laying on the ground begging for his life.

I don't have any idea how their statute is written, or how the trial judge let the charge and verdict form eventually be given to the jury. I'm just speaking about general terms here, I don't have any factual knowledge about the particulars to make an opinion if the fault was with the judge, the jury, the prosecutors, the law, or some collection of them.

Something certainly appears totally fucked when this happens without a conviction of some type of homicide. My last post was just an attempt to be helpful about the general definitions that apply, even in Arizona.

[Smitty-48]

The 66,000 non combatants in Iraq were not the enemy, and the Americans who killed them did not intend to murder them with malice, you have to make split second decisions, under extreme pressure, and you don't have hindsight to make judgements, and when you're in an environment where everyone is armed to the teeth, and you can't tell who is who in the moment, shit happens, that's just how it goes.

Sometimes you're too aggressive, sometimes you're not aggressive enough, but you can't know for sure, you just have to make a call, one way or the other, it's the quick and the dead, sometimes you make the right call, sometimes you don't.

The problem is this premise that people are trying to shoot cops left and right and therefore they are justified in killing people, pets, the elderly, etc as soon as they feel a little scared. In actuality, something like 50 cops per year are shot/stabbed and killed. It's not much of a risk. Many more die driving. If we want to save cops lives by letting them puss out, we should say they don't have to speed and run lights en route to emergencies.

Considering the cops kill well over 20 civilians for every one who kills them, it is us who should be afraid in these situations. They have little to worry about and are trained. We have a lot to worry about and are untrained. They are in control, armed and issuing the commands, with armed, trained partners. We are scared, in an unfamiliar situation and maybe drunk. They are the killers over 95% of the time. But if they kill us out of unjustified fear, it's kosher.

Moreover, their job is to deal with people who are intoxicated, crazy, stupid, belligerent, etc. They should know how to deal with people who are erratic, belligerent, non-compliant, or panicked.

Miraculously, postmen can work without shooting every dog who might maybe possibly bite them. EMTs can deal with drunks and crazies without shooting them. Teachers can deal with gang members without shooting them every time they fail to follow instructions or reach in their pocket or get belligerent.

Police are only in marginally more danger than these people, yet we give them license to kill anybody who, as DSL says, screws up a game of simon says.

They get 80k/year on a high school diploma and retire at 50 because they are paid to take risks to keep us safe. If that bargain is off, pay the legions of fifes accordingly. If it's on, change the laws and training accordingly.

Well, that's a political case not a legal one, I mean, hey, if you want to make me dictator, I'll throw his ass in jail, no problemo, that's not going to bring Daniel Shaver back, but I'm not saying I like the guy, I don't like that cop at all, and if you want to throw the law aside and give me centralized power to dole out retribution, I'm here for you, I'd be chucking dickheads out of helicopters left and right, just for pissing me off.

Smitty Jong Un can make things happen for you, anything you want, skies the limit.