Daniel Shaver shooting

[Fife]

Describe the difference in a cop's right to use violence in self-defense and your right to use violence in self-defense.

That's your answer to the question?

OK

[DBTrek]

Describe the difference in a cop's right to use violence in self-defense and your right to use violence in self-defense.

[nmoore63]

He seem to think that someone was in danger when the dude was on the floor with his hands outstretched.

Who?

Dude, when you start pointing rifles into the streets from a hotel room window, you're a danger until proven otherwise, I mean, who the hell does that, except mad snipers in the bell tower?

That’s a wierd way of justifying a cop taking a person from no threat to threat, that results in the cop having to open fire.

Surprised you accept such a low standard.

[DBTrek]

Nick has a problem with the tactics.
Jury didn't.
Nick doesn't love murderous cops.
Either the jury does love murderous cops (unlikely) or they have a more informed view of all the factors at play and ruled as justly as they could (likely).

/shrug

[Smitty-48]

He seem to think that someone was in danger when the dude was on the floor with his hands outstretched.

Who?

Dude, when you start pointing rifles into the streets from a hotel room window, you're a danger until proven otherwise, I mean, who the hell does that, except mad snipers in the bell tower?

That’s a wierd way of justifying a cop taking a person from no threat to threat, that results in the cop having to open fire.

Surprised you accept such a low standard.

The cop opens fire are 4:26 when the suspect very much does appear to reach for it, second time after being warned, in the process of acting very sketchy all around, on a call where the suspect would reasonably be suspected of being armed and dangerous, after reportedly pointing a rifle at the public from a hotel room window, in a country where crazy shit like the Las Vegas mass shooting is actually a regular occurrence.

[nmoore63]

Nick has a problem with the tactics.
Jury didn't.
Nick doesn't love murderous cops.
Either the jury does love murderous cops (unlikely) or they have a more informed view of all the factors at play and ruled as justly as they could (likely).

/shrug

I think it highly likely the jury was given very narrow instructions to rule on the 1 second of film that is a hysterical dude instinctively trying to pull up his pants.

[nmoore63]

Dude, when you start pointing rifles into the streets from a hotel room window, you're a danger until proven otherwise, I mean, who the hell does that, except mad snipers in the bell tower?

That’s a wierd way of justifying a cop taking a person from no threat to threat, that results in the cop having to open fire.

Surprised you accept such a low standard.

The cop opens fire are 4:26 when the suspect very much does appear to reach for it, second time after being warned, in the process of acting very sketchy all around, on a call where the suspect would reasonably be suspected of being armed and dangerous, after reportedly pointing a rifle at the public from a hotel room window, in a country where crazy shit like the Las Vegas mass shooting is actually a regular occurrence.

should the cop still be employed as a cop?

[Smitty-48]

That’s a wierd way of justifying a cop taking a person from no threat to threat, that results in the cop having to open fire.

Surprised you accept such a low standard.

The cop opens fire are 4:26 when the suspect very much does appear to reach for it, second time after being warned, in the process of acting very sketchy all around, on a call where the suspect would reasonably be suspected of being armed and dangerous, after reportedly pointing a rifle at the public from a hotel room window, in a country where crazy shit like the Las Vegas mass shooting is actually a regular occurrence.

should the cop still be employed as a cop?

I can't say either way, I mean, I have to know somebody before I personally can say whether they should be fired or not, but I am certainly not inclined to fire anybody for a crime which they have been acquitted of.

If they just fired him knee jerk, based on being charged, I'd say that's just throwing him under the bus for political reasons.

[Smitty-48]

I mean, when you're an armed agent of the state, being brought to court to justify your actions is an occupational hazard, so terminating them simply for being charged is a catch-22 of sorts, you're charged with using force, so simply being charged for using force should not be a firing offense in of itself, either you're innocent until proven guilty or you're not, and if you are, why would you fire an innocent man?

[nmoore63]

The cop opens fire are 4:26 when the suspect very much does appear to reach for it, second time after being warned, in the process of acting very sketchy all around, on a call where the suspect would reasonably be suspected of being armed and dangerous, after reportedly pointing a rifle at the public from a hotel room window, in a country where crazy shit like the Las Vegas mass shooting is actually a regular occurrence.

should the cop still be employed as a cop?

I can't say either way, I mean, I have to know somebody before I personally can say whether they should be fired or not, but I am certainly not inclined to fire anybody for a crime which they have been acquitted of.

If they just fired him knee jerk, based on being charged, I'd say that's just throwing him under the bus for political reasons.

If the chief in my community kept him on, I would move before the council to have his entire force disbanded.

At best, the officer put the public he is sworn to protect at risk to help himself.

I have no use for such military mentality of an occupied populace. If this is the best you can do, we will take care of these problems ourselves.