Not sure which video you were watching, but the one I saw the man was told SPECIFICALLY what to do and the consequences (being shot) of not doing so. He reached for his waistband (something he was told NOT to do) and was blown away (something he was told WOULD happen). Dumbass.
If I were a juror my verdict would be the same...Mormon or not.
The cop gave numerous conflicting orders, which some of us wonder was meant to confuse and give an excuse for this execution.
Cross your legs, hands in the air, uncross legs, crawl on your pinkies. Etc.
The cop could have easily let this guy be face down with arms and legs spread amd the cop walk up to him to handcuff. Or a K9 ofiicer would have changed the scenario.
Happens on “Cops” on every felony stop.
Additionally, wtf did this cop have an AR-15 rather than a service pistol. The militarization of municipal police will someday be an ugly page of American history.
Again, not sure which video you were watching but I didn't find anything "conflicting" in the cops demands and was able to follow what he was saying quite easily. Either way, what part of "Do that again and we are shooting you" is difficult to understand?
I couldn't agree with you more, I too wish they would have just walked over and cuffed him. Don't know why they didn't, but it didn't play out that way. If it were me, I would have just laid there and not moved until they came over and cuffed me.
The guy made a mistake, even after being told NOT to make a mistake. It cost him his life unfortunately but I blame HIS actions for it...not the cop.
The fact that ALL of the cops had AR-15's doesn't bother me a bit. Having friends that are cops and being aware of what they face every day in order to protect me...arm them to the hilt. Hell, give them a bazooka too. Makes me feel all warm and safe inside.
Jaxson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Either way, what part of "Do that > again and we are shooting you" is difficult to > understand?
Jaxson, the argument that you are making, that non-compliance to an order is justification for deadly force, doesn't address the legal requirement that the officer "reasonably" believe that the suspect is about to use deadly force.
In fact, a deft prosecutor could have used those very words, "Do that again and we are shooting you", to paint a picture of an over-aggressive, over emotionalized cop who was already committed to using deadly force, regardless of the threat level of any perceived non-compliance.
The fact that this even went to trial means that there was doubt regarding the reasonableness of the cop's perception of the threat. It seems that in this case, the defense was able to convince the jury that the perception of imminent threat was reasonable, so he got lucky.
In any case, you really need to rephrase your rational. Killing people for mere non-compliance is despicably tyrannical.
>Jaxson, the argument that you are making, that non-compliance to an order is justification for deadly force, doesn't address the legal requirement that the officer "reasonably" believe that the suspect is about to use deadly force.
Are you kidding?? The ONLY reason the cops were there was because of a weapons report. That in ITSELF makes it more than reasonable to assume deadly force. To top it all off, before being searched and/or disarming, the man was TOLD not once but twice that if he reached for anything he would be shot. And also told, "Don't make a mistake." The guy then went for his waistband. What was the cop to do? Wait to see if he produced and fired a weapon? Take a shot for the team? HELL NO!!! They did what they TOLD him they would do. Way more than reasonable. The jury agrees...and so do I.
I have no problem with cops killing for non-compliance especially after issuing warnings and having everything video documented. The question shouldn't be, "Is it worth killing someone over non-compliance?", it should be, directed to the perp, "Is it worth dying for?".
First: The suspect was non-compliant, therefore, the officer was justified in killing him.
Second: The suspect's actions created a situation where the officer felt that there was a reasonable threat to his life, so the officer was justified in killing him.
I suggested that you reword your argument because you seemed to be coming from the first position, however I suspected and hoped that you were really coming from the second.
If the second argument more accurately represents your view, then you would have a legally sound position, and yes the jury agreed with you, and I can only say that you and the jury have a different standard of "reasonable" then the prosecutor or I do.
If you insist that the first argument, which by the way is the position of totalitarian dictators and tyrants, represents your position, then you have no legal basis for justification, the jury almost certainly doesn't agree with you on this, and I'll say without hesitation or embarrassment that I despise you and your despicably immoral view on the value of human life.
So you may clarify if you wish: Is it the first or the second?
Jaxson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have no problem with cops killing for > non-compliance especially after issuing warnings > and having everything video documented. The > question shouldn't be, "Is it worth killing > someone over non-compliance?", it should be, > directed to the perp, "Is it worth dying for?".
You do realize that the cop was terminated for non-compliance with his superior officers' lawful commands, right? Are you saying that the same standards of punishment should be applied to ALL of those who disregard such commands regarding use and threat of deadly weapons? The cop you're defending might take issue with that.
It couldn't be more clear. That ex-cop should have never been issued a weapon. He was role-playing some mashed up story in his head, something between Dirty Harry, The Fight Club and Star Wars. A total coward - an amateur with an itchy trigger finger shot a drunk instead of controlling and containing. Maybe it's the Feds' turn to educate about extra-judicial executions.
Jaxson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Again, not sure which video you were watching but > I didn't find anything "conflicting" in the cops > demands and was able to follow what he was saying > quite easily. Either way, what part of "Do that > again and we are shooting you" is difficult to > understand? > > I couldn't agree with you more, I too wish they > would have just walked over and cuffed him. Don't > know why they didn't, but it didn't play out that > way. If it were me, I would have just laid there > and not moved until they came over and cuffed me. > > The guy made a mistake, even after being told NOT > to make a mistake. It cost him his life > unfortunately but I blame HIS actions for it...not > the cop. > > The fact that ALL of the cops had AR-15's doesn't > bother me a bit. Having friends that are cops and > being aware of what they face every day in order > to protect me...arm them to the hilt. Hell, give > them a bazooka too. Makes me feel all warm and > safe inside.
Well since AR-15 ball ammo goes right through walls and floors, this could have been very bad. They are lucky there were not collateral damage victims in the floor before them.
Jury nullification is generally not taught in civics class in public schools. It should he.
As more of these videos go viral, the population is going to come to the point of no confidence in law enforcement. I think it is close to that now.
....and people like you are the reason why cops never get convicted even when their recklessness and lawlessness is right there on camera for all to see.
so...cop is reckless, cop fucks up, people like you make excuses for him.
This cop got away with murder. But hey, when you wear a badge and a uniform, you usually do. And there is significant percentage of society that will never convict a cop under any circumstances. I can only hope this his life is ruined and he spends the rest of his life as a pariah.
Here is another asshole authoritarian who feels like it's his God given right to exact retribution on anyone who dares to defy his "authority".
Humberto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That he didn't precisely follow directions isn't > even legally relevant and an utterly horrid, > tyrannical reason to kill another human being.
This man was executed by the new American Gestapo without a trial.
Jaxson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure which video you were watching, but the > one I saw the man was told SPECIFICALLY what to do > and the consequences (being shot) of not doing so.
This irrelevant statement is cop arrogance in a nutshell. You aren't allowed to shoot someone simply for disobeying an order. Warning someone before murdering them is not a defense.
If I tell someone to quit calling my wife or I'll shoot him, and he calls my wife can I shoot him? What if I'm a cop?
The leaders and protectors of our society here in the United State have of late gravely failed us. And more then anything I wish the Bible thumping people of the South would come out of their coma.
I think that juries try to give the police the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. Traveling to a hotel with an air rifle, and pointing it out of a window -- who does that? Of course people are going to be alarmed. Of course the police (who didn't know what type of rifle it was,) are going to approach the situation with extreme caution and a heightened sense of danger. Just think about the Las Vegas shooter and how pointing a rife out of a window ended up there.
Yes, the police response could have been better -- a lot better. But I think this was one of those situations where a jury is going to side with the officer.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2017 01:35AM by summer.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a civil suit. A kid from my old ward in Mesa was almost killed by Mesa cops during a domestic disturbance call. That’s where you don’t have enough trouble on your hands so you call in the experts. Three cops show up. Kid is high as a kite and playing with his favorite knife. Being stoned (good enough reason to call the cops in Mesa) he couldn’t follow orders fast enough so one cop fires his taser, hitting the officer on the other side of the kid. They teach that at the academy? The officer screams in pain, prompting the other officers to fire shotgun bean bags at the kid. Kid falls on his knife, slicing into his jugular (or was it carotid? It was bad). A million dollars in medical bills later, he gets a settlement from the city of Mesa. Maybe God’s occupying army can do no wrong, but they sure are expensive.
Mormons have a particular brand of arrogance and "I am god" complex. Most seem to perpetuate the abuse that was heaped on to them during their boyhood "Lord of the Flies" training.
So the cop didn’t want any sudden moves from the intoxicated man. Then why didn’t he just leave the man laying on his abdomen with hands behind his head and handcuff him in that position. For the life of me, I cannot understand why he was asked to crawl forward.
Since this is somewhat about Mormons, this cop was very heavily tattooed in some pictures. I found that interesting.
The answer to your question is hinted at by the questions being asked by the cops at the beginning of the confrontation regarding whether there were others in the room.
Having the suspect crawl forward is a tactical move to avoid exposing themselves to potential hostile action from unknown people in the room.
I've known and worked with Mormons all my life. Though they appear to be nice decent people, appearances can be deceiving. In reality the Mormon church is a self serving cult at heart. Their children like many children these days are untrustworthy, as well their parents, not all mind you but more than they would admit. Their self righteous entitled mentality has dominated much of the southwest for generations. The inbreeding so pervasive in Mormon families has so addled their brains I'm afraid there is no hope for these "people". One need only to view Brailsford photo and the worms that infest His head are of a common Mormon variety as reflected in the obviously Mormon jury's disgusting decision.