Daniel Shaver: Police Officer Not Guilty Of Murder

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42277309

Its quite clear that the Officer had no need to kill this man, so how can he have been found not guilty ?

Is it any wonder that the American Police are losing their credibility ?

[mikey4444]

Zacs.....you have ago at reading this account of the killing of Menezes, and the disgraceful aftermath :::::

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

[naomi24]

This isn't about Menezes nor about circumstances remotely similar to that case.

[Zacs-Master]

Yes Mikey, the bit that reads ‘........Based on this information, Gold Command authorised 'code red' tactics, and ordered the surveillance officers to prevent Menezes from boarding a train.’
Makes my point excellently. So thanks for that.

[mikey4444]

Naomi....I was pointing out that its a good thing that our Police are not routinely armed, as they would probably act in exactly the same way as their American colleagues.

Thanks goodness we have more sense over here.

[mikey4444]

Zacs....you have obviously not read the Wiki link.

[naomi24]

Mikey, if a police officer thinks a suspect is reaching for a gun, what do you think he should do?

[Zacs-Master]

Mikey, A’s has been pointed out several times, your OP contains 2 basic inaccuracies.
1. You have no idea that the officer had a need to kill the man. The video is inconclusive.
2. The American police aren’t losing their credibility.

Threads like this and the one where you completely missed the point that Micheal Gove was making simply erode your own credibility.

[Zacs-Master]

Mikey, I quoted FROM THE LINK!

I think you’re losing the plot, my old son.

[emmie]

an unarmed man shot by the police, trigger happy i would have thought..

[mikey4444]

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree Zacs !

[Zacs-Master]

How do you know he was unarmed. More to the point, how did the officer know?

[Zacs-Master]

Perhaps you’ll have to realise you’re writing complete tosh Mikey. Again.

[ToraToraTora]

you cannot tell in the video but the testimony says he reached for his waistband, if he did that is why he was shot. The officer was acting within his training. I cannot see mikey why it is "quite clear" the officer had no need.

[ToraToraTora]

With these threads I tend to give my response before reading the whole thread so I am not influenced by the other responses. I am glad to see I am not the only one to have pointed out the explanation for this above. Mikey as several above have pointed out this guy was shot because the officer thought he was reaching for a gun in his waist band, if he reached thus he was not obeying the officer and left the officer no choice. Very sad case but this guy died because he did not listen to the officer. You have done a lot of sarcasm above but not once acknowledged the explanation. You cling to the fact that this was a simple execution when it was not. What if the guy did have a gun in his belt? Are the officers supposed to wait until one of them is shot? Your wriggling here is very distasteful and you refusal to accept the obvious explanation is indicative of a dangerous "I know best" attitude. Have a look at yourself in this thread.

[douglas9401]

While I agree that anybody alive today should know to obey the instructions of an American policeman, I'd prefer my dispensers of death to be a bit more mature looking than the tattooed foetus pictured in the article.

That's basically, 'aren't the police looking young these days'.