[Hindsite]

This seems to me to be a case of conflicting expectations in a life-or-death situation. The cop expected his commands to be obeyed and for the officer to be able to act in safety at all times. That his commands might seem confusing or contradictory didnt seem to be an issue for him, and that operating from a position of safety at all times might require unreasonable demands also doesn't seem to be an issue for him. The victim (yes, victim) expected that he could act emotional/uncontrolled/drunk with a rifle and not get in shit for it at some point, and that in a life-or-death situation he expected some of his actions to be perceived in a non life-or-death fashion.


I suspect the guy's hand went down as a reaction - his pants were falling or his balance was off. I suspect that in a life-or-death situation the cop viewed the hand-moving-towards-waist action as a reach for a weapon and thus he shot first. A good example of how different expectations can have horrible outcomes, and what a life-or-death situations is.

It is unusual for people to have training (or even experience) keeping calm during tense situations; to swallow one's ego completely and obey; to be mindful of all their actions when in unusual emotional, physical and environmental circumstances. As such, expectations from the average person should be low. Police are held to a higher standard as they get training, and constantly assessing situations are expected. Furthermore, (civilian) police are not executioners nor military, they are expected to protect the people, their life on the line is part of the expectation. Not walking up to the victim and cuffing/padding/etc him when he was laying on the ground and not waiting a second when his hand went down were acts of safety for the officer, not bravery. Understandable for the average person, but more is expected from the police. Maybe the cop was a coward or lazy, or maybe his training and ability were horrible, but his actions and inaction make him a bad cop in my opinion. Not criminal nor corrupt kind of bad, just bad at this part of the job.

That is a good analysis. Since the police are held to a higher standard, he should be held accountable for the death he caused. No police officer should be excused for his actions that causes the death of an innocent person. In the case of most of the blacks that were shot and killed by police, the blacks were not innocent and their failure to follow instructions was the cause of their death.

[Pants-of-dog]

You're trying to place the burden of proof on me when it was you who made a claim that you should be supporting with evidence.
You said in part;

Admit you're wrong or at least give us something to support your claim.

Actually, I cannot put any burden of proof on you since you have not made any claim. You have just asked some vague questions that seem to have no point.

As for the evidence that there was collusion, the fact that the cop was acquitted despite the video is evidence that the prosecution failed to perform their job adequately.

This is probably due to the close relationship that prosecutors share with police.

[Hindsite]

https://www.facebook.com/TYTBreakdown/videos/345111142632996/

Tomi Lahren makes a lot of sense. The video guy, not much.

[Heisenberg]

I guess I don't understand why people like to give the Police so much benefit of the doubt in these cases. Basically, people say that it's a hard job, they're always in danger, and thus, these kinds of slip ups are ok. Purely because it's tough to make quick judgments about a potential threat.

My argument is this. Yes, the job is dangerous, and it should be dangerous precisely because they shouldn't be taking out their guns and shooting people up on the slightest feeling of danger. The job is dangerous, and yes, you should be thinking twice before taking out your gun. Yes, requiring better judgement makes the job more dangerous, but the job is dangerous. Don't be a cop if that's an issue to you.

Well said.

For me, the "dangerous job" excuse will never cut it. Soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq had to follow much more stringent rules of engagement, under much more dangerous conditions, than your average beat cop in the US will ever face. Magically, they were able to do it, and if they didn't, they'd face a court martial. Police officers are given far too much leeway with regard to "believing their lives are in danger".

[skinster]

I don't think they really believe their life is in danger - since it is they who hold any real power - but they operate on a mentality that it is them against the world and everyone who isn't a cop is a threat.

[Hindsite]

Well said.

For me, the "dangerous job" excuse will never cut it. Soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq had to follow much more stringent rules of engagement, under much more dangerous conditions, than your average beat cop in the US will ever face. Magically, they were able to do it, and if they didn't, they'd face a court martial. Police officers are given far too much leeway with regard to "believing their lives are in danger".

I agree, especially in this case.

[Ranb]

Actually, I cannot put any burden of proof on you since you have not made any claim. You have just asked some vague questions that seem to have no point.

You're asking what my argument is when in fact I've merely asked you for evidence to support your claim.

As for the evidence that there was collusion, the fact that the cop was acquitted despite the video is evidence that the prosecution failed to perform their job adequately.

So you know for a fact that the jury was allowed to see the entire video in question? I've yet to see anything that says they saw the unedited version that was released to the public. There are news reports that other evidence was suppressed by the judge as it was deemed "prejudicial".

[Albert]

I saw this video before, this is so wrong on so many levels I do not even know where to start.

The questions I have here is.

1) How did this guy end up in police force? Is it poor training? Poor screening?

2) How come this police officer is not punished? At least for utterly failing to do his duty and work properly? There needs to be accountability for this type of actions, especially to serve as an example to other assholes and idiots out there. This guy should be at least in jail for this act.

3) Also what I really want to know, is why the police officer did what he did. Is he just a poorly trained fool/idiot? Or this was intentional homicide? In the end though, regardless of both possible dispositions, his actions are worth of criminal indictment and punishment in my opinion.

[Pants-of-dog]

You're asking what my argument is when in fact I've merely asked you for evidence to support your claim.

So we agree you have no argument.

What claim do you think I am making?

Also, what exactly do you think os wrong about my claim?

So you know for a fact that the jury was allowed to see the entire video in question? I've yet to see anything that says they saw the unedited version that was released to the public. There are news reports that other evidence was suppressed by the judge as it was deemed "prejudicial".

Actually, the defense and the prosecutor both argued that the video should not be released as it would prejudice people against the cop. The prosecutor deliberately chose to withhold evidence that would have helped him prosecute the cop.

http://www.azfamily.com/story/31724916/ ... e-shooting

The top prosecutor for metro Phoenix said Wednesday he won't release body-camera video of a police officer fatally shooting an unarmed man, despite a push by the man's wife and news organizations to make the footage public.

A judge has barred release of the video that shows Mesa Officer Philip Brailsford killing Daniel Shaver as he crawled on the ground. Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery's office and the officer's lawyer argued his fair-trial rights could be harmed and the jury pool tainted if the video is released.

[Ranb]

Refusing to release a video to the public to prevent tainting of the jury pool is not unusual and is not an example of withholding evidence. Try again. What evidence do you have of collusion?

[Pants-of-dog]

Refusing to release a video to the public to prevent tainting of the jury pool is not unusual and is not an example of withholding evidence. Try again. What evidence do you have of collusion?

I noticed that you did not answer my questions.

But as long as we agree that the prosecutor acted so as to defend the defendant from being seen as guilty, despite the fact that his job is to do the exact opposite.

[Rancid]

I don't think they really believe their life is in danger - since it is they who hold any real power - but they operate on a mentality that it is them against the world and everyone who isn't a cop is a threat.

True true.

Another theory people have is that one problem is, we hire too many ex-millitary people to become police. They may be going into the police job with the incorrect mindset that working the beat is like patrolling around a war zone.

[Ranb]

I noticed that you did not answer my questions.

I have; you've been avoiding an answer to mine.

But as long as we agree that the prosecutor acted so as to defend the defendant from being seen as guilty, despite the fact that his job is to do the exact opposite.

It's not the DA's job to taint the jury pool.

[Suntzu]

In 2016 143 LEOs were killed in the line of duty. Of those 66 were shot, 29 killed in car crashes, 15 were struck by vehicles, 15 died of job related illness and 10 in motorcycle crashes. Being a cop is a very safe job.

[Heisenberg]

Another theory people have is that one problem is, we hire too many ex-millitary people to become police. They may be going into the police job with the incorrect mindset that working the beat is like patrolling around a war zone.

I think there is some truth in this, but it's not quite so simple. I think the problem is hiring too many damaged ex-military people to become police. The US military doesn't do a great job with PTSD treatment, from what I've read, so they could be hiring a lot of unstable ex-soldiers who've left the military after tours in Iraq or Afghanistan without being properly screened. Take PTSD out of the equation and I'd imagine ex-soldiers would make very good police officers - they are much more disciplined than civilian officers, and they are used to operating calmly in stressful and dangerous situations.

[Pants-of-dog]

I have; you've been avoiding an answer to mine.

No. I asked you to tell me what you thought my claim is, because you seem confused.

I also asked you to explain what was wrong with my claim. You have not done that either.

It's not the DA's job to taint the jury pool.

Is it his job to protect the reputations of cops even after jury was selected?

The family of the victim asked him to release the tape. As someone who campaigned on victims’ rights, it would be hypocritical of Montgomery to simply ignore the rights of the victim’s family when a cop is being accused. Yet he did.

He also uses police investigators in cases where there are police shootings.

And then there is the conflict of interest because Montgomery is representing the city in the widow’s civil case against the municipality, but is also in charge of prosecuting the man who made her a widow.

Then there is that fact that Mariposa county has at least thirty shootings by cops each year, and they mostly do not get charged with anything. The minority that do result in charges never result in convictions, even when there is video evidence that is apparently so bad it would taint a jury.

But if you want to believe that an ex-military man who campaigned on a “law and order” platform is going to make sure cops are treated just like everyone else, go ahead.