Daniel Shavers killer walks free.

[Obsidian]

And on all forums I just see people defending that he should go free.

That's the maddening part. This man's blood is on their hands. The next victim's blood will be on their hands as well.

[Terraceth]

Accidents happen. But there is such a thing as being criminally incompetent at something. Everything about what he was doing was wrong from the start. He escalated the situation, he yelled out confusing instructions (crawl while your hands are in the air), the person had no gun at all and was completely innocent of any wrongdoing and was trying to cooperate as best as he was able. The whole thing was captured on film.

I should point out that from what I've read, the person shouting the contradictory and confusing instructions was actually a different officer than the one who shot him.

[Cow Poke]

I should point out that from what I've read, the person shouting the contradictory and confusing instructions was actually a different officer than the one who shot him.

They actually added confusion where they should have created and maintained order. It's like they were either scared to death, or never properly trained. Or both.

[One Bad Pig]

I'm done responding to you until you've had a chance to cool off. You're not in a state of mind to discuss this rationally.

This IS Obsidian's normal state of mind. He exegetes with a sledgehammer, not a scalpel.

[Leonhard]

For what its worth I also don't get Obsidians exegesis here. Except as a general statement that criminal negligence is possible. But I don't see how it avoids begging the question here.

[Obsidian]

For what its worth I also don't get Obsidians exegesis here. Except as a general statement that criminal negligence is possible.

American law: The officer killed someone beyond any reasonable doubt, and it wasn't reasonable to fear for his safety, so it wasn't reasonable to kill. GUILTY: 15-25 years.

Biblical law: It doesn't matter whether the officer had any reason to fear for his safety, because his own recklessness caused the death. GUILTY: Death penalty.

[Cow Poke]

American law: The officer killed someone beyond any reasonable doubt...

[Obsidian]

Well, help me out about where you're confused.

[Mountain Man]

I should point out that from what I've read, the person shouting the contradictory and confusing instructions was actually a different officer than the one who shot him.

So that adds another layer of reasonable doubt to the whole situation. I'm not inclined to think the jury was wrong to find him not guilty of murder. It seems the prosecution didn't have a particularly strong case.

[Obsidian]

Oh, that gives us reasonable doubt about whether he knowingly killed the man? Dang, I didn't think of that. I guess it was right to acquit.

*end sarcasm*

[seer]

So that adds another layer of reasonable doubt to the whole situation. I'm not inclined to think the jury was wrong to find him not guilty of murder. It seems the prosecution didn't have a particularly strong case.

The charge of murder was a bridge to far, they should have gone for "man one."

[Sparko]

To me, it seems like that cop was prolonging the whole encounter until the kid made a mistake. I would have just walked up and handcuffed him from the get go...

From what I read, the police were called out about a man shooting a rifle out of his hotel window. Which means they probably thought this was an active shooter/sniper situation. The cops are probably SWAT since they are using rifles instead of pistols like a normal cop. SWAT usually are more military and aggressively careful in how they handle a potential sniper situation. There could have been another shooter down the hall so they didn't want to approach the guy but have him and the girl come to him instead (there was a side hallway down the hall they could not see around)

The guy DID keep reaching behind his back several times despite being warned not to. The cop was obviously nervous and on adrenaline. When the kid reached back to adjust his shorts, it looked like he was reaching again what could be a weapon and the cop reacted and shot him.

While I don't think such a nervous cop should have been in something like SWAT, and from what I read he was fired, I don't think this was murder. The kid was drunk and could not follow instructions. The cop was nervous and reacted too fast. But after all of the recent cop killings and terrorist attacks, I can't blame him for being nervous. He had no way to know if the kid had a gun or other weapon hidden down his pants.

[Sparko]

Here is the frame right before he got shot:



The officer could not see that the guy was pulling up his pants. From his angle it looks like the guy could be reaching for a gun.

[seer]

Here is the frame right before he got shot:


The officer could not see that the guy was pulling up his pants. From his angle it looks like the guy could be reaching for a gun.

I'm sorry these cops were just paranoid! Where this kid is in your picture was far enough away from the corner and he was laying down right before that - they could have just cuffed him. No excuse, maybe it wasn't murder but it was manslaughter one.

[Mountain Man]

Oh, that gives us reasonable doubt about whether he knowingly killed the man? Dang, I didn't think of that. I guess it was right to acquit.

*end sarcasm*

I honestly have no idea what you're on about. Nobody disputes that the officer is responsible for killing the suspect. The question is whether or not he committed murder, which is killing with premeditation and malice -- or as the Bible describes it, a willful and cunning attack -- and based on the evidence, the answer appears to be no. The officer might be guilty on other matters for which a solid case could have been made, but the prosecution chose instead to overreach with a murder indictment, and so the officer was able to escape any legal repercussions.

And just to demonstrate that I'm not siding with the defendant just because he's a cop, there was another case recently where an illegal immigrant shot and killed a woman. He was found not guilty of murder because the woman was killed by a ricochet that traveled about 80-feet before hitting her, making it appear unlikely that the defendant was deliberately aiming for her (there's that reasonable doubt again). I agree with that ruling and think, again, that the prosecution overreached with a murder indictment when there was a better case to be made; for instance, the unlawful discharging of a weapon since he did admit to the police that he intentionally fired the gun, but he claims he was trying to shoot a seal.