LaQuinta Motel, Arizona Shooting hotel

[Bozz10mm]

It's not over yet. The widow has filed a civil wrongful death suit and asked the DOJ to investigate.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/daniel-shaver-wife-laney-sweet-speaks-out-mesa-arizona-police-shooting/

 

[AustinN4]

It's not over yet. The widow has filed a civil wrongful death suit and asked the DOJ to investigate.

Good

 

[sharkey]

You really should read this book sometime to understand the Brave New World your acceptance of cultural degeneracy is "progressing forward" towards...

https://www.huxley.net

So what would be your answer to finding suitable candidates when there is a current shortage? Should we lower skill set characteristics or allow tattoos?
We should ban profane speech and reprimand any officer that uses it in any situation? Please.
So what causes cultural degeneracy? Is it that someone says MF’er or could it be something more? Maybe profane speech is just the result of cultural degeneracy. I don’t agree with most of cultural degeneracy but I also don’t pretend being upset about it will somehow stop it. Whose standards are we gonna use? Yours? Mine? The majority? The minority?

See we were talking about a Mesa Officer shooting but somehow we took a detour talking about offensive dust covers and profane speech as if any of that mattered.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BRD@66]

......
See we were talking about a Mesa Officer shooting but somehow we took a detour talking about offensive dust covers and profane speech as if any of that mattered.

Welcome to TGT

 

[Renegade]

A judge determining what is evidence and what is allowed in court is not defined at "tampering with evidence."

You want to argue, but you keep agreeing with me.

Yes that is what I said:

Not the defense, but the judge

As for the word 'tamper"

Dictionary.com:

to make changes in something, especially in order to falsify

 

[Younggun]

Everybody seems to be assuming the message on the dust cover is meant for a person in front of the rifle, but that person wouldn't be able to read, much less read the message.

I offer a different explanation. The message "You're Fucked" is intended to be read by the person standing to the right of the shooter where it would be plainly visible and easily read. It's a warning that he is about to shower you with hot brass from the ejection port which by certain and not yet understood physics is guaranteed to land and become stuck in the collar of your shirt causing 3rd degree burns.

For that reason, the dust cover has no bearing on the officers attitude towards suspects and this is why it was dismissed as evidence.

 

[Renegade]

Everybody seems to be assuming the message on the dust cover is meant for a person in front of the rifle, but that person wouldn't be able to read, much less read the message.

I offer a different explanation. The message "You're Fucked" is intended to be read by the person standing to the right of the shooter where it would be plainly visible and easily read. It's a warning that he is about to shower you with hot brass from the ejection port which by certain and not yet understood physics is guaranteed to land and become stuck in the collar of your shirt causing 3rd degree burns.

For that reason, the dust cover has no bearing on the officers attitude towards suspects and this is why it was dismissed as evidence.

Unfortunately the text was on the inside of the cover, thus it would be too late to react to the hot brass in most situations.

I submit the cover was to suggest tonight would be your lucky night.

 

[Younggun]

Unfortunately the text was on the inside of the cover, thus it would be too late to react to the hot brass in most situations.

I submit the cover was to suggest tonight would be your lucky night.

That would depend on the SOP of the officer operating the firearm. My assumption is that the firearm is typically transported with an empty chamber and on safe. When needed for service the a magazine is inserted, charging handle pulled and released, causing a round to be chambered and dust cover opened by the movement of the bolt carrier. At this time the message is visible to applicable personnel prior to any brass being ejected and giving those in line of ejected brass notice that they are in the danger zone.

By your submission the message would not be visible until after "getting lucky" due to the cover not being open until after shots fired and even if the rifle were turned in a way to make the right side of the rifle visible to the projectile recipient said recipient would not get their intended message.

 

[Renegade]

That would depend on the SOP of the officer operating the firearm. My assumption is that the firearm is typically transported with an empty chamber and on safe. When needed for service the a magazine is inserted, charging handle pulled and released, causing a round to be chambered and dust cover opened by the movement of the bolt carrier. At this time the message is visible to applicable personnel prior to any brass being ejected and giving those in line of ejected brass notice that they are in the danger zone.

hence why I said "too late to react to the hot brass in most situations.", as you have to wait until the gun is charged to see it.

By your submission the message would not be visible until after "getting lucky" due to the cover not being open until after shots fired

I guess we were thinking of different kinds of luck that can occur.

 

[Younggun]

hence why I said "too late to react to the hot brass in most situations.", as you have to wait until the gun is charged to see it.

I doubt they start firing immediately. My guess would be the rifle is charged prior to entering a presumed dangerous situation giving others plenty of time.

I guess we were thinking of different kinds of luck that can occur.

I'm mostly just fucking around. Just thought about it being kinda funny at the range just before some asshole does a mag dump.

 

[Renegade]

me too

 

[diesel1959]

It's not over yet. The widow has filed a civil wrongful death suit and asked the DOJ to investigate.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/daniel-shaver-wife-laney-sweet-speaks-out-mesa-arizona-police-shooting/

This ain't Obama's DOJ.

 

[sharkey]

You want to argue, but you keep agreeing with me.

Yes that is what I said:

Not the defense, but the judge

As for the word 'tamper"

Dictionary.com:

to make changes in something, especially in order to falsify

Whatever dude. A judge does not “tamper” with evidence especially when using the definition “in order to falsify” that you posted.

You mentioned speaking to a Lt. Are you an officer? If an officer of the court tampers with evidence, I am pretty freaking sure that is a felony. The judge did not allow the issue of the dustcover in for the same reason priors are not allowed when determine guilt. It is prejudicial. If you are an officer, I would assume you would know that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

The judge did not allow the issue of the dustcover in

Right so the gun was tampered with so the jury would not see what it really looked like. As I already pointed out, if you do not like tamper, go with alter, modify, change, remove, cover, whatever.

Like I said, you agree with me 99.9%, but you are bent on finding that .1% to argue with. In this case, it seems you do not like my use of the word "tamper", which has a lot of valid definitions.

The bottom line is the jury did not see the rifle as it was used in the shooting, nor were they told what changes were made. Agree "yes" or disagree "no" with the that sentence?

 

[ZX9RCAM]

How about modifying carry weapons from stock, and going to court for a shoot, ie: trigger modifications.

 

[Renegade]

How about modifying carry weapons from stock, and going to court for a shoot, ie: trigger modifications.

Ayoob has covered this, even testified in some cases. The answer is "it depends on shoot and what mods"

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Kind of like this argument, who can prove what his intentions were with the dustcover.

ETA: not exactly like...

 

[tact]

Of all the fuckery going on in that shit show and there’s multiple pages arguing over what the words on a dust cover meant......

 

[Younggun]

The argument was over who the words were intended for.


Damn.

 

[diesel1959]

Right so the gun was tampered with so the jury would not see what it really looked like. As I already pointed out, if you do not like tamper, go with alter, modify, change, remove, cover, whatever.

Like I said, you agree with me 99.9%, but you are bent on finding that .1% to argue with. In this case, it seems you do not like my use of the word "tamper", which has a lot of valid definitions.

The bottom line is the jury did not see the rifle as it was used in the shooting, nor were they told what changes were made. Agree "yes" or disagree "no" with the that sentence?

When evidence is excluded, it's not called tampering. It's like redacting words/phrases/sentences from a document. Removal/replacement of the dust cover is no different than that. :meh: