Daniel Shaver shooting

[heydaralon]

I think the degrees to the murder would only apply if the defendant was using a compass. I guess a stabbing with a meat thermometer might also apply.

[Speaker to Animals]

OK, but that's not murder in of itself, hence the prosecution arguably overcharged him, and apparently a jury of his peers thought so too.

Bet that if MY incompetence cause an innocent person's death, I would not get away with it. Cops should be held to AT LEAST the same standard as me.

Of course you wouldn't. The law doesn't give a shit about how you felt in the moment. That's farcical nonsense extended to him as a special right just because he is a cop. Anybody can read the law. I posted it earlier. He has two points to prove in an affirmative defense. Nor does reasonable doubt factor into this. The facts clearly show him killing an innocent man. The law is pretty clear here. He should have been required to mount an affirmative defense, which places the burden of proof on HIM.

[Speaker to Animals]

Simple facts:

Did this cop kill an innocent person that was not threatening anybody? YES.

That's illegal. The self-defense statutes may provide an avenue for him to mount an affirmative defense. He has to prove two things according to Arizona law. The burden of proof should have been on him.

[Smitty-48]

He did threaten, he pointed a rifle or what any reasonable person would believe to be a rifle, at the public out of the window of a hotel room, that's the dictionary definition of a public menace, if you do shit like that, of course the police are going to respond, and of course they are going to be under the impression that you are armed and dangerous.

I don't know what the law says in Arizona, but he wouldn't be "innocent" where I come from, pointing a rifle at the public out of a hotel window is not only reckless, it's a criminal offence.

[DBTrek]

In order for StA to make that “simple facts” claim he has to rely 100% on hindsight, and information available only after the incident occurred.

Pretty useless. Any event is easy to judge in hindsight.

[K@th]

He did threaten, he pointed a rifle or what any reasonable person would believe to be a rifle, at the public out of the window of a hotel room, that's the dictionary definition of a public menace, if you do shit like that, of course the police are going to respond, and of course they are going to be under the impression that you are armed dangerous.

You keep skipping over the part where the cop had the situation under control.

[Speaker to Animals]

In order for StA to make that “simple facts” claim he has to rely 100% on hindsight, and information available only after the incident occurred.

Pretty useless. Any event is easy to judge in hindsight.

I already posted the law. The law for murder doesn't say anything about how somebody felt in the moment. The self-defense law for affirmative defense doesn't even factor in your feelings.

[The Conservative]

In order for StA to make that “simple facts” claim he has to rely 100% on hindsight, and information available only after the incident occurred.

Pretty useless. Any event is easy to judge in hindsight.

I already posted the law. The law for murder doesn't say anything about how somebody felt in the moment. The self-defense law for affirmative defense doesn't even factor in your feelings.

You are forgetting, we are dealing with people in the feels department, not the logic department.

[Smitty-48]

He did threaten, he pointed a rifle or what any reasonable person would believe to be a rifle, at the public out of the window of a hotel room, that's the dictionary definition of a public menace, if you do shit like that, of course the police are going to respond, and of course they are going to be under the impression that you are armed dangerous.

You keep skipping over the part where the cop had the situation under control.

All that matters, in terms of mens rea for murder, is at 4:26 where Shaver appears to be reaching for a gun, a second time after being warned not to on pain of being shot, and the cop shouts "don't" and then shoots him, with hindsight, I know that Shaver doesn't have a gun, but in the moment, he does appear to be reaching for one, which is reasonable doubt as to the cop having no justification whatsoever to shoot him.

[Speaker to Animals]

There is a crime called murder. It is possible to technically commit the crime, but be found not guilty according to the self-defense statute. That's where this should have gone. He should have been required to prove his case in self-defense. The fact that he committed murder is indisputable. He literally killed an innocent man begging for his life on the ground. We know this from the cop's own body camera footage.