LaQuinta Motel, Arizona Shooting hotel

[Texas42]

Oh they just excluded the dust cover? Not the whole video?

 

[diesel1959]

Oh they just excluded the dust cover? Not the whole video?

yes.

 

[Charlie Primero]

Ok, you think it is a filthy disgusting curse word. Again, how does that have anything to do with the shooting?

Because Prosecutors and Juries take such things into account.

As for cops being an example to young men, I imagine to a small minority of boys they still are but the majority are taught by parents, schools, and social media to distrust and hate the uniform officer.

Your acceptance of degenerate filth as normal is exactly the reason why only a small minority of young boys look up to Policemen instead of a majority.

Perhaps you are not old enough, or have not read enough History to understand the cause-and-effect relationship of how degeneration of moral principles in a society leads to collapse of that society, and vice-versa.

 

[MTA]

Your acceptance of degenerate filth as normal is exactly the reason why only a small minority of young boys look up to Policemen instead of a majority.

Perhaps you are not old enough, or have not read enough History to understand the cause-and-effect relationship of how degeneration of moral principles in a society leads to collapse of that society, and vice-versa.

+1

 

[Renegade]

What was on the rifle dust cover has 0 bearing on the shooting.

Well the defense and the judge disagreed, hence whey they petitioned and got it excluded. If it had 0 bearing, they could have left it on gun. Instead they had to tamper the evidence presented to the jury.

One thing is for sure, it certainly has a huge impact on public perception of police. One would think, police would be more sensitive to their image in these difficult times and not do stupid stuff like this.

 

[MTA]

Well the defense and the judge disagreed, hence whey they petitioned and got it excluded. If it had 0 bearing, they could have left it on gun. Instead they had to tamper the evidence presented to the jury.

One thing is for sure, it certainly has a huge impact on public perception of police. One would think, police would be more sensitive to their image in these difficult times and not do stupid stuff like this.

Where were his seniors at? No one saw this guys rifle ever and thought that having that dust cover was a stupid idea?

Leadership should know that having that on a rifle is pretty unprofessional in addition to everything else stated in this thread.

 

[Younggun]

Where were his seniors at? No one saw this guys rifle ever and thought that having that dust cover was a stupid idea?

Leadership should know that having that on a rifle is pretty unprofessional in addition to everything else stated in this thread.

It's on the inside of the dusk cover and wouldn't be visible 99% of the time.

 

[Renegade]

It's on the inside of the dusk cover and wouldn't be visible 99% of the time.

Yep and since it was a violation of policy, it would not surprise me if he removed it during quals.

 

[MTA]

It's on the inside of the dusk cover and wouldn't be visible 99% of the time.

He never showed it to any of his brothers in blue? Cmon now

 

[sharkey]

Well the defense and the judge disagreed, hence whey they petitioned and got it excluded. If it had 0 bearing, they could have left it on gun. Instead they had to tamper the evidence presented to the jury.

One thing is for sure, it certainly has a huge impact on public perception of police. One would think, police would be more sensitive to their image in these difficult times and not do stupid stuff like this.

Wait, what? In another thread on another forum that I believe you are also posting in as well here in this thread, it was stated the judge excluded it. Which is it? I also think you meant to say prosecution above and not defense because the officer's attorney would never introduce that. I have no idea what you are saying with "tampering with evidence presented to the jury". In the other forum, I said the officer should be reprimanded for having it but AGAIN, it has 0 bearing on finding guilt or innocence on the shooting. Now if he was convicted, maybe they would introduce that for punishment but the jury agreed with me......this time.

Public perception of police is at an all time low and it is not because we have the work "f'k " on our equipment. That is a whole different subject and thread. You do know that public perception is based on the experience level they have and well most don't have experience answering high risk calls.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

Wait, what? In another thread on another forum that I believe you are also posting in as well here in this thread, it was stated the judge excluded it. Which is it?

Yes, the judge excluded it at the request of the defense. Was that not clear ("Well the defense and the judge disagreed, hence whey they [defense] petitioned and got it excluded").

I also think you meant to say prosecution above

Huh? Why would the prosecution want it excluded? They were trying to paint him as a trigger happy killer.

 

[sharkey]

Because Prosecutors and Juries take such things into account.



Your acceptance of degenerate filth as normal is exactly the reason why only a small minority of young boys look up to Policemen instead of a majority.

Perhaps you are not old enough, or have not read enough History to understand the cause-and-effect relationship of how degeneration of moral principles in a society leads to collapse of that society, and vice-versa.

Well I am pushing 50 next year and served for 21 years as a licensed LEO and was an instructor and FTO so I think I have a handle on it.

What about you? How many interactions with felons or answering high risk calls do you have? Did you always say please and you never used a curse word? How is the weather in that ivory tower? See, sometimes when you deal with POS, being polite to take control, just no workee. I always treated people as nice as they allowed me to treat them. You need to get out more. A majority of kids have not looked up to police for a couple decades now. Once again, as for a reason why that is another subject for another thread.

You do know that prosecutors can only introduce facts relevant to the case into evidence right? The juries ONLY take into account what the judge allows into evidence. More folks really should retake a civics class or one on criminal law or even sit in on a case but I think more folks get their info on police and the courts from Law and Order or Chicago PD. Maybe even try a ride along a couple times?

Officers are obviously hired from general society and as such they come with the "norms" of society. I think your issue is with the break down of society but blaming this shooting on curse words or as Renegade opined - tattoos is just a bit ridiculous.

Pssst, if you ever find yourself at gunpoint of a uniformed officer, just do what they ask. I know that goes against many beliefs that they control their own behavior but in an interaction with Joe Q Public, if I am not in control, I will get control whether you like it or not. It is easy to second guess when we weren't there or you have limited experience in that type of call.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

but blaming this shooting on curse words or as Renegade opined - tattoos is just a bit ridiculous.

Why do you feel the need to make shit up? You must be thinking of someone else. I am clearly in the lawful shooting camp. In fact I bet I am more pro-cop on this incident than you.

 

[diesel1959]

Well the defense and the judge disagreed, hence whey they petitioned and got it excluded. If it had 0 bearing, they could have left it on gun. Instead they had to tamper the evidence presented to the jury.

One thing is for sure, it certainly has a huge impact on public perception of police. One would think, police would be more sensitive to their image in these difficult times and not do stupid stuff like this.

Agreed. While I definitely feel it is legally irrelevant in the trial, it is certainly something that officers and departments (by policy) should seek to end. There's no place for that type of "self-expression" on a duty firearm.

 

[MuscleCarMan]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-daniel-shaver-police-video-20171208-story.html
Play it at .25 speed. I counted 4 shots and it was self defense. I did see him pull a gun.
But after reading this, I think he was drunk, pulled up his pants and the cops thought it was a gun and acted accordingly. From what I read the man was wanted for second-degree murder so I don't blame the cop for shooting him although he only needed one shot not five.

 

[Renegade]

Play it at .25 speed. I counted 4 shots and it was self defense. I did see him pull a gun.

5 shots and no gun was pulled or even on his person.

 

[MuscleCarMan]

5 shots and no gun was pulled or even on his person.

Ok have you read this:http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-daniel-shaver-police-video-20171208-story.html

 

[Renegade]

Ok have you read this:http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-daniel-shaver-police-video-20171208-story.html

OK I did:

No mention of four shots (would have been wrong if there was), and the article clearly said "No gun was found on Shaver's body."

Now feel free to go read the autopsy info and the fact there were 5 bullets pulled, or look at crime scene photos showing 5 spent cartridges on ground, or all the testimony stating 5 shots fired.

 

[MuscleCarMan]

OK I did:

No mention of four shots (would have been wrong if there was), and the article clearly said "No gun was found on Shaver's body."

Now feel free to go read the autopsy info and the fact there were 5 bullets pulled, or look at crime scene photos showing 5 spent cartridges on ground, or all the testimony stating 5 shots fired.

ok it's just hard to see on slow-mo

 

[Younggun]

Why do you feel the need to make shit up? You must be thinking of someone else. I am clearly in the lawful shooting camp. In fact I bet I am more pro-cop on this incident than you.

I've noticed that often times you (or anyone) get lumped in to one group or the other based on a single comment.

in this case if you post the shooting was justified you a lumped in to the "always pro cop, no mistakes were made, they did everything perfect, that rat bastard deserved to die" group.

If you don't believe the shooting was justified you are put in to the "all pigs are pigs, that poor guy did nothing wrong at all, that cop killed 6 puppies before breakfast and his partner should have shot him in the back of the head" group.

Only about 4 people on the forum fit either group, but I guess it's easier to win arguments if you throw all opposition in to one or the other.