TexasCHLforum.com

It would be helpful if we had a copy of the jury instructions the court read to the jury.

The criminal laws of Arizona governed this case with its own definitions of murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc. That might help us see how the jury "applied the law to the facts."

Same of course would go with the Steinle case out of San Francisco.

dlh wrote:It would be helpful if we had a copy of the jury instructions the court read to the jury.

The criminal laws of Arizona governed this case with its own definitions of murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc. That might help us see how the jury "applied the law to the facts."

Same of course would go with the Steinle case out of San Francisco.

Click "show more": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AQndX39JMs

Police reports are in the Bill Blowers facebook link as well

Thanks montgomery.

The problem I am having with the jury's verdict is the following, assuming (and that may or may not be correct) this is the definition of justification the judge gave the jury:

13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force

A. A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.

B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force pursuant to this section if the person is in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act.

Focus on the language of A.2. How was the officer a "reasonable person" under the totality of the circumstances, especially since the victim in fact did not use or attempt to use any deadly force against the officer? Remember one comment above said some officers would need to see a weapon actually displayed or know one was actually on the person of the victim to justify that element for the use of deadly force.

I understand the jury heard and saw the evidence so of course they are in a better position than I to apply the law to the facts---it just puzzles me.

BBYC wrote:

parabelum wrote:This murderer should not have been acquitted. Brings great shame for LE community. I wish there was a loud protest from the LE circles against this fascist thug who doesn’t deserve to be called cop.

What does that tell us when there isn't?

Sadly to do what DEB suggested on page 3, and be careful with your OC rig especially. Those are just starters.

When a man gets 15 years for bacon in mosque and vandalism (it is criminal and I do agree that penalty ought to be strict), but this one walks out singing, it is a sad day.

How about that pharmacist in OK, remember that? You think that was worse?

Again, very sad pathetic verdict.

Like olbill mentioned earlier, if you or I had done this, we’d be in prison, likely facing premeditated murder charge.

parabelum wrote:When a man gets 15 years for bacon in mosque and vandalism (it is criminal and I do agree that penalty ought to be strict), but this one walks out singing, it is a sad day.

How about that pharmacist in OK, remember that? You think that was worse?

Again, very sad pathetic verdict.

Like olbill mentioned earlier, if you or I had done this, we’d be in prison, likely facing premeditated murder charge.

They would have had a field day with the number of rounds fired.

Shaver Shooting a Wake-Up Call for Reforms

Daniel Shaver did not deserve to die. He made an otherwise innocuous mistake, as people often do, especially in high pressure situations and after having consumed alcohol. But he did not deserve to die for it. Shaver could have been any one of our twenty-something children or siblings.

The events of the night in which 25-year old Shaver died nearly two years ago, are not in dispute. Shaver was drinking with two companions in a Mesa, Arizona La Quinta Inn. At one point that evening, likely showing off, Shaver pointed a pellet rifle he used for his job in pest control out of the fifth-floor window, prompting a report to the police from someone who observed this foolhardy act. When police arrived, things escalated . . . quickly.

Pawpaw wrote:Shaver Shooting a Wake-Up Call for Reforms

A very good thoughtful reaction and response!

The police responded to a rifle pointed out a window. Based on the video, I don't see how a reasonable man could think Daniel Shaver had a rifle hidden in his pants, especially after seeing him flat on the floor. What worries me as much as the trigger happy gunman with obscenities on his AR-15 is the scenario where there actually was a dangerous MWAG (before the cops arrived) and the police were so focused on some unarmed drunk guy that they allowed an active shooter to escape, or kill more people.

Wolverine wrote:The police responded to a rifle pointed out a window. Based on the video, I don't see how a reasonable man could think Daniel Shaver had a rifle hidden in his pants, especially after seeing him flat on the floor. What worries me as much as the trigger happy gunman with obscenities on his AR-15 is the scenario where there actually was a dangerous MWAG (before the cops arrived) and the police were so focused on some unarmed drunk guy that they allowed an active shooter to escape, or kill more people.

Responded to a report of what could have been a rifle pointed our a window. They never saw the pellet gun before they killed Shaver.

No matter how many times I watch this, I cannot fathom how in this Country this murdering fascist is allowed to walk.
Watch after he executes this young father of two how concerned they are with the door, swiping the card trying to get in, not busting it down, but swiping the dang card!
You’d think if he was so concerned for his safety out of fear of additional threat that he had to execute this man, they’d handle the door differently, what if someone was on the other end waiting for them, second they hear the swipe click they could send bullets through the door. Sorry, these fascist cops were not scared. Just bloodthirsty.

https://youtu.be/M62Va6Ft2cw

Is it the police or the laws we have allowed to be enacted in our name for the illusion of safety.

Probable cause v. Reasonable suspicion.

There are some videos on YouTube with a former Baltimore police officer named Michael Woods and Joe Rogan. I won't link it because of language.

Woods tells the truth some of us know from our military service.

OlBill wrote:Is it the police or the laws we have allowed to be enacted in our name for the illusion of safety.

Probable cause v. Reasonable suspicion.

There are some videos on YouTube with a former Baltimore police officer named Michael Woods and Joe Rogan. I won't link it because of language.

Woods tells the truth some of us know from our military service.

Also the "investigatory detention" based on "reasonable suspicion."

dlh wrote:

OlBill wrote:Is it the police or the laws we have allowed to be enacted in our name for the illusion of safety.

Probable cause v. Reasonable suspicion.

There are some videos on YouTube with a former Baltimore police officer named Michael Woods and Joe Rogan. I won't link it because of language.

Woods tells the truth some of us know from our military service.

Also the "investigatory detention" based on "reasonable suspicion."

Anything thing to consider, since apparently justice didnt, is why the heck would you give commands for the subject to crawl towards you, whom you perceive as a deadly threat, as evidenced by his 5rd burst into him?
So, this cop psychopath (I think he’s deranged and danger to society), is ordering what he perceives as deadly threat to come closer to him? Huh? Wouldn’t you want him to face away from you and cuff him while your partner covers you? Cowardly bastard.

I’m pretty upset over this actually, as this young man was from the tiny community where we live and his two little girls are now fatherless while this sick man is out.