The Police Murder of Daniel Shaver

SmarterthanYou said:
can you find me one single instance where you called an armed government enforcement agent a murderer, when the death occurred during the course of 'official' government duties?
Click to expand...

NOW I UNDERSTAND.
You want to make a made up generalization and then demand that someone else provide you with fuel for your fire. :good4u:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
NOW I UNDERSTAND.
You want to make a made up generalization and then demand that someone else provide you with fuel for your fire. :good4u:
Click to expand...

no, you're definitely confused now and not making much sense. thats ok. I understand how people avoid things they don't want to come to terms with. carry on.
 
What's next? Have a cop shoot you if you can't walk a straight line when you're drunk? You cop apologists are truly sick people. I hope you suffer a tragedy at the hands of the police. It will serve you right
 
tinfoil said:
What's next? Have a cop shoot you if you can't walk a straight line when you're drunk? You cop apologists are truly sick people. I hope you suffer a tragedy at the hands of the police. It will serve you right
Click to expand...

Was this excessive force? Of course!
Did the cop over react? Of course!
Should the city and cop be sued in civil court for Shavers death? Yes!

I don't believe he should have been tried for the crimes he was tried for based on the following:

"Second Degree Murder: Definition
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-murder-overview.html

Involuntary Manslaughter Overview
Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as a DUI). The usual distinction from voluntary manslaughter is that involuntary manslaughter (sometimes called "criminally negligent homicide") is a crime in which the victim's death is unintended.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/involuntary-manslaughter-overview.html"

Yes I believe the cop should be held accountable but the jury decided right or wrong to find him not guilty. End of story.
 
Eagle Eye said:
Was this excessive force? Of course!
Did the cop over react? Of course!
Should the city and cop be sued in civil court for Shavers death? Yes!

I don't believe he should have been tried for the crimes he was tried for based on the following:

"Second Degree Murder: Definition
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-murder-overview.html

Involuntary Manslaughter Overview
Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as a DUI). The usual distinction from voluntary manslaughter is that involuntary manslaughter (sometimes called "criminally negligent homicide") is a crime in which the victim's death is unintended.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/involuntary-manslaughter-overview.html"

Yes I believe the cop should be held accountable but the jury decided right or wrong to find him not guilty. End of story.
Click to expand...

He told the guy he was going to shoot him if he made a mistake. It was not unintentional.
 
Fraidy cops go free. Imagine a threat, blow away innocent people and the jury will let you off the hook. Unreal! I have to admit, it sure looks like we've become police state just Alex Jones predicted a decade ago. Legalized murder for not following instructions! I can no longer blame people for being conspiracy theorists about the drift into violent authoritarianism.
 
tinfoil said:
He told the guy he was going to shoot him if he made a mistake. It was not unintentional.
Click to expand...

That is and opinion on your part you don't know what the cop was thinking. Clearly there was evidence that the jury heard you are unaware of. So your opinion means nothing in this case.
 
Eagle Eye said:
That is and opinion on your part you don't know what the cop was thinking. Clearly there was evidence that the jury heard you are unaware of. So your opinion means nothing in this case.
Click to expand...

Actually we do know what the cop was thinking based on what his attorney said in court as described in the OP.
 
cawacko said:
Actually we do know what the cop was thinking based on what his attorney said in court as described in the OP.
Click to expand...

Understand I am not defending the cop but I take exception to anyone saying they know what another person is thinking at any given time. What was said in court is memory of the events from months ago. I have been in life and death situations in combat and afterward I couldn't tell you what I was thinking at any given moment. So I maintain that we don't know what the cop was thinking not that it matters at this time as the case has been decided.
 
Eagle Eye said:
Understand I am not defending the cop but I take exception to anyone saying they know what another person is thinking at any given time. What was said in court is memory of the events from months ago. I have been in life and death situations in combat and afterward I couldn't tell you what I was thinking at any given moment. So I maintain that we don't know what the cop was thinking not that it matters at this time as the case has been decided.
Click to expand...

For obvious reasons cops are rightly given a lot of leeway in their actions as in many situations their lives are on the line.

In this particular case you're right that no one but the officer knows what he was thinking. But with the video and court testimony it was stated he was scared for his life and that's why he fired.

As has been stated previously by many here that whole scenario didn't have to play out that way.
 
cawacko said:
For obvious reasons cops are rightly given a lot of leeway in their actions as in many situations their lives are on the line.
Click to expand...
what an absolutely abysmal way of looking at society and government. why on earth would you give an armed government enforcement agent that kind of leeway? do you think the founders did that for the redcoats?
 
cawacko said:
For obvious reasons cops are rightly given a lot of leeway in their actions as in many situations their lives are on the line.

In this particular case you're right that no one but the officer knows what he was thinking. But with the video and court testimony it was stated he was scared for his life and that's why he fired.

As has been stated previously by many here that whole scenario didn't have to play out that way.
Click to expand...

And I totally agree. This was a cop who was not suited to be in such a position. He should never been hired in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top