Don't Pull Your Pants Up!

[Ifreann]

When you're crawling forward.

You shouldn't be moving either.

Obviously both sides are bad tho

Disobey the police when they tell you to crawl forward? That's just asking to get shot.

[Holy Tedalonia]

You shouldn't be moving either.

Obviously both sides are bad tho

Disobey the police when they tell you to crawl forward? That's just asking to get shot.

Don't you know there's a thing called elbows, he should have used them.

[Alvecia]

Disobey the police when they tell you to crawl forward? That's just asking to get shot.

Don't you know there's a thing called elbows, he should have used them.

Dunno about you, but my hand don’t get very up while my elbows are touching the ground. They still tend to be quite low.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Don't you know there's a thing called elbows, he should have used them.

Dunno about you, but my hand don’t get very up while my elbows are touching the ground. They still tend to be quite low.

Your doing it wrong do it right.

[Katganistan]

Not that I am excusing the police (I am not), but a more accurate title would have been 'don't reach for your waistband' , with the addendum in the first post 'when faced with a cop screaming at you with his gun drawn as he will say he thought you were reaching for a weapon when he blows you away'

[Saiwania]

http://www.tmz.com/2017/12/12/officer-p ... est-video/

So it seems to have been established more or less, that this police officer was a loose cannon who has a history of abuses while conducting his job. The more "dirt" that can be dug up on him, the greater chance there is perhaps to overturn this unjust ruling by this flawed jury. But it is wishful thinking at this point.

The judge withheld crucial information with the excuse that it'd be "prejudicial" against the officer. As such, this can be grounds to retry the case in a different court. If the judge has a history of doing this too much, it is likely that they are corrupt whilst on the bench.

[Des-Bal]

http://www.tmz.com/2017/12/12/officer-philip-brailsford-shot-killed-daniel-shaver-excessive-force-arrest-video/

So it seems to have been established more or less, that this police officer was a loose cannon who has a history of abuses while conducting his job. The more "dirt" that can be dug up on him, the greater chance there is perhaps to overturn this unjust ruling by this flawed jury. But it is wishful thinking at this point.

The judge withheld crucial information with the excuse that it'd be "prejudicial" against the officer. As such, this can be grounds to retry the case in a different court. If the judge has a history of doing this too much, it is likely that they are corrupt whilst on the bench.

Please stop being wrong about the law it's confusing to people. First of all it's always been wishful thinking: you can't overturn an acquittal. We have an amendment about that. Second of all evidence of prior bad conduct is not "crucial evidence" it is exactly the kind of prejudicial information juries aren't supposed to have. When the judge says "prejudice" he's not pulling an excuse out of his ass, when evidence has a tendency to lead a trier of fact to rule on inappropriate grounds it's prejudicial and when the prejudice outweighs the probative value the evidence is rightfully excluded. This evidence has no probative value whatsoever so it's a pretty simple test.

People need to stop accusing judges of corruption whenever they make a ruling that they don't understand.

[Saiwania]

I have to conclude that the laws in Arizona are wrong then. With Arizona being an "open carry" state, citizens are legally entitled to be armed and the police have no right to interfere with that. It is Republicans' fault if they passed gun laws that are overly lax to the point that police personnel are scared and dangerously paranoid by default.

I don't see it as an excuse for what happened, at the very least there was bad procedure. I advise that there be no more "crawl" commands used by any department. Suspects should be able to have a chance to remain perfectly still until detained and not needlessly be put in danger by violent brutes who happen to be badged and uniformed.

[Des-Bal]

I have to conclude that the laws in Arizona are wrong then. With Arizona being an "open carry" state, citizens are legally entitled to be armed and the police have no right to interfere with that. It is Republicans' fault if they passed gun laws that are overly lax to the point that police personnel are scared and dangerously paranoid by default.

I don't see it as an excuse for what happened, at the very least there was bad procedure. I advise that there be no more "crawl" commands used by any department. Suspects should be able to have a chance to remain perfectly still until detained and not needlessly be put in danger by violent brutes who happen to be badged and uniformed.

They were dealing with a report of a man sticking a gun outside the window, regardless of what gun laws look like they still would have gone in with the assumption he wasarmed.

[Saiwania]

http://www.newsweek.com/white-nationali ... ver-744398

An interesting political realignment may be happening in relation to this incident.

The White Nationalist/racist crowd used to trend towards liking the police by default, because they had a tendency to kill or mistreat Black people, especially when BLM was at its peak of national discussion.

Now- after the events of Charlottesville last year (where they believe police sided with Antifa), and this incident; many within that segment of the population are seeing it as a wake up call that the government is not on their side and they can't trust law enforcement any more than Black people can.

“Walter Scott was running away from police,” “Daniel Shaver is on his hands and knees, complying with law enforcement, sobbing and begging for his life.” They are now asking, why does Walter Scott get more justice and national media exposure than the victim of this tragedy?"

[The Alma Mater]

Not that I am excusing the police (I am not), but a more accurate title would have been 'don't reach for your waistband' , with the addendum in the first post 'when faced with a cop screaming at you with his gun drawn as he will say he thought you were reaching for a weapon when he blows you away'

But he was only reaching there because his pants were coming off...

[The Horror Channel]

I don't see how anyone can watch this video and say it wasn't murder.

[Saiwania]

I don't see how anyone can watch this video and say it wasn't murder.

I consider it a murder, and I don't recognize this jury ruling as legitimate given how biased towards the defense it was. Why isn't Sergeant Charles Langley being prosecuted as well? If Brailsford is escaping any accountability asides from getting fired, maybe he can be gone after instead.

Should the proper response to interactions with hostile police be to shoot at them? At least then you can die on your feet instead of on your knees and take one or more with you if they're intent on killing you.

What too many people are failing to understand is that there is nothing conservative about defending police when they murder innocent people.

[Bakery Hill]

I don't see how anyone can watch this video and say it wasn't murder.

I consider it a murder, and I don't recognize this jury ruling as legitimate given how biased towards the defense it was. Why isn't Sergeant Charles Langley being prosecuted as well? If Brailsford is escaping any accountability asides from getting fired, maybe he can be gone after instead.

Should the proper response to interactions with hostile police be to shoot at them? At least then you can die on your feet instead of on your knees and take one or more with you if they're intent on killing you.

What too many people are failing to understand is that there is nothing conservative about defending police when they murder innocent people.

Well in a sense there is. There's a conservative instinct to side with order over liberty and institutions over individuals. A wise conservative may do otherwise in these cases, but not everyone's wise.

[Saiwania]

http://www.tmz.com/2017/12/13/daniel-sh ... -behavior/

As I suspected, Sergeant Charles Langley has a track record of abusive conduct. Not just Philip Brailsford.
Will Infected Mushroom or another user have the gall to say that it isn't relevant to why what happened occurred?

http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights ... none-of-us

No American is safe, until its out of control police state is reigned in.

[Holy Tedalonia]

If only the cop shouted, "keep your pants down and on the ground!" This might've ended differently.

[Ifreann]

If only the cop shouted, "keep your pants down and on the ground!" This might've ended differently.

The police ordering someone to strip at gunpoint would have been a different sort of problem.

[Holy Tedalonia]

http://www.tmz.com/2017/12/13/daniel-shaver-shooting-sergeant-discipline-abusive-behavior/

As I suspected, Sergeant Charles Langley has a track record of abusive conduct. Not just Philip Brailsford.
Will Infected Mushroom or another user have the gall to say that it isn't relevant to why what happened occurred?

http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights ... none-of-us

No American is safe, until its out of control police state is reigned in.

Which is worst American police force, or an actual police state like NK? To be fair,American police officers don't tend to be as abusive as many police states, and what's more they're local forces, so in technicality the police reflect off of today's culture.

[Holy Tedalonia]

If only the cop shouted, "keep your pants down and on the ground!" This might've ended differently.

The police ordering someone to strip at gunpoint would have been a different sort of problem.

He's not ordering him to strip, he just doesn't want him to pull his pants up, for uhhhh legal reasons...

[Ifreann]

The police ordering someone to strip at gunpoint would have been a different sort of problem.

He's not ordering him to strip, he just doesn't want him to pull his pants up, for uhhhh legal reasons...

Hilarious.

[Infected Mushroom]

http://www.tmz.com/2017/12/13/daniel-shaver-shooting-sergeant-discipline-abusive-behavior/

As I suspected, Sergeant Charles Langley has a track record of abusive conduct. Not just Philip Brailsford.
Will Infected Mushroom or another user have the gall to say that it isn't relevant to why what happened occurred?

http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights ... none-of-us

No American is safe, until its out of control police state is reigned in.

their past record is irrelevant; that sort of thing is prejudicial in a court of law

[Infected Mushroom]

The police ordering someone to strip at gunpoint would have been a different sort of problem.

He's not ordering him to strip, he just doesn't want him to pull his pants up, for uhhhh legal reasons...

DON'T MOVE! DON'T YOU FUCKING MOVE!

(suspect freezes)

DON'T MOVE! PUT YOUR PANTS WHERE I CAN SEE THEM!

Suspect: ... wut? Pants?

I'M NOT HERE TO NEGOTIATE WITH YOU! PUT YOUR PANTS-

(raises hand)

BAM! BAM! BAM!

[Corporate Societies]

I'm pro-copish

but this guy man.



idk

[Holy Tedalonia]

He's not ordering him to strip, he just doesn't want him to pull his pants up, for uhhhh legal reasons...

DON'T MOVE! DON'T YOU FUCKING MOVE!

(suspect freezes)

DON'T MOVE! PUT YOUR PANTS WHERE I CAN SEE THEM!

Suspect: ... wut? Pants?

I'M NOT HERE TO NEGOTIATE WITH YOU! PUT YOUR PANTS-

(raises hand)

BAM! BAM! BAM!

There going to take the pants for 'evidence'

[Ohioan Territory]

Unfortunate, but the officer made his instructions very clear and Shaver did not comply. Shaver essentially asked to be shot.