BF2S Forums Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

I am sorry for being rude. I had no idea I was speaking to a fellow member of law enforcement.

HollisHurlbut wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Or … OR, if they want to limit what officers can engrave on the rifles they carry on duty, they can make it department policy.

If the department doesn't issue long guns to their officers, the department should be limited as to what it disallows on the rifles their officers buy and outfit with their own money.

But that's not really an argument against a policy like that, is it. There are people who buy their uniforms with their own money, but that doesn't mean they get to customize them to any extent they please, does it. Let me copy/paste it again:

An internal investigation report revealed that Brailsford had violated department weapon policy by engraving his patrol rifle with the phrases "You're fucked" and "Molon labe" (a Greek expression meaning "come and take them").[27][28]

HollisHurlbut wrote:

Also, I'd think the inscription would be relevant to character. Although I'm not an expert in trial law and don't know how admissible it would be, I suspect that detail was omitted because it would speak ill of his character.

The officer's character is irrelevant as to the determination of objective reasonableness of a particular use of force.  This has been the case ever since the Supreme Court shifted the framework under which uses of force are examined from an Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment standard to a Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure standard in Graham v. Connor in 1989.  This shift removed an officer's subjective motivations from the list of factors to be considered in determining whether a use of force was justified.  This is only proper because all that matters in a use of force, ultimately, are two questions (which can be, and usually are, further broken down but they can be distilled to): what was the subject doing, and what did the officer do in response?  As an example, let's say a patrol officer walks his beat every day for twenty years and every day for twenty years one malcontent sees him on the street and calls him a jack-booted thug, a tyrant, a tool of the oppression machine, and insults the officer's mother.  Finally, after twenty years the malcontent can't contain his rage against the machine any longer and pulls a gun on the patrol officer.  It is utterly irrelevant if seeing the malcontent's brains splash onto the wall behind him is the most satisfying sight the officer has ever seen.  All that matters is what threat the malcontent was presenting at the time the patrol officer splashed his brains onto the wall.

One specific person harassing one specific cop daily for twenty years before pulling a gun? That ridiculously skewed hypothetical doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to the shooting of Daniel Shaver.

Was he trigger happy? Did he, like some gun enthusiasts, look forward to shooting someone? Did he mention it to anyone? Would an attitude like this influence his decision to fire five shots? Would knowledge of this have influenced the decision of the jury?

I'm no lawyer. Maybe the judge was legally correct in burying that detail. But you can't say it, and the whole mess surrounding it, doesn't stink.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

I am sorry for being rude. I had no idea I was speaking to a fellow member of law enforcement.

I didn't think you were being rude, just very wrong.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

But that's not really an argument against a policy like that, is it. There are people who buy their uniforms with their own money, but that doesn't mean they get to customize them to any extent they please, does it.

No, but two things distinguish a rifle from the uniform...
1: The point of a uniform is, wait for it, uniformity.  It instills discipline, a sense of camaraderie, and identifies the officer to the public.  Allowing modifications to the uniform defeats this purpose.  Rifles, on the other hand (particularly the AR platform), are designed to be infinitely customizable with any number of accessories.  The charging handle, trigger, trigger guard, optics, iron sights, handguard, foregrip, light, and laser sight can all be added or customized to the owner's desire.

2: A uniform is meant to be worn while on duty.  A personally-owned rifle is meant to be used at any time.

Let me copy/paste it again:

An internal investigation report revealed that Brailsford had violated department weapon policy by engraving his patrol rifle with the phrases "You're fucked" and "Molon labe" (a Greek expression meaning "come and take them").[27][28]

You act as if I am unaware of what was inscribed on the rifle.  You can quote it all you want, but that's not going to convince me of anything.

I don't know why you consider "molon labe" to be incriminating, or even questionable.  As for "you're fucked," I agree it's not something you should be engraving on the rifle you may have to use when you shoot someone, but only because it raises questions like this in the public eye.  It has nothing to do with whether or not Brailsford's use of force was justifiable, or with the question of whether or not Shaver's killing was murder.

One specific person harassing one specific cop daily for twenty years before pulling a gun? That ridiculously skewed hypothetical doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to the shooting of Daniel Shaver.

It wasn't meant to.  It was meant to illustrate how and why the determination of whether a use of force is objectively reasonable is divorced from the subjective motivations of the officer who applied the force.  It doesn't matter how Brailsford felt about it, or even if he wanted to do it.  All that matters in such inquiries are three things: threat presented, severity of the crime at issue, and level of resistance.

Was he trigger happy? Did he, like some gun enthusiasts, look forward to shooting someone? Did he mention it to anyone? Would an attitude like this influence his decision to fire five shots? Would knowledge of this have influenced the decision of the jury?

The prosecution could not show that the inscriptions were connected enough (or at all) to the shooting to make them admissible as evidence.  They were therefore not admissible as evidence against Brailsford.  I think it was the right call.  What if it wasn't his patrol rifle that had the inscription, but instead was another AR he kept at home?  What if it was on a t-shirt instead?  Without evidence it was connected to this use of force, where is your threshold for admissibility as evidence that Brailsford was somehow gunning for Shaver all along?

I'm no lawyer. Maybe the judge was legally correct in burying that detail. But you can't say it, and the whole mess surrounding it, doesn't stink.

I can say that (about the inscriptions), and I do say that.

You should avoid using the word fuck in all professional roles period. I feel embarrassed if I let one slip in front of my colleagues.

Newbie, how would you feel about a devout Christian engraving a simple cross or a devout Muslim engraving a Crescent Moon on their guns? Engraving religious icons on weapons is an old practice. It also adds +5 Holy Damage.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

My argument is that just because people pay for something they might wear or carry on duty or at their job doesn't mean they can throw policy out the window. Yes, clothing is an imperfect analogy to a service rifle, but it's more on the mark than that weird analogy you made about a crazy man bugging a cop for twenty years.

Even if I were to grant that it was a legitimate policy to disallow certain inscriptions on personally-owned gear that happens to also be used on duty, that still doesn't mean anything with regard to admissibility as evidence in a murder trial.  You're quoting reasons the department axed him, not a connection between the inscription and the shooting.

Yeah, not exactly surprised. You've already got your mind made up.

If you read carefully, you'll note that it was your repetition of the inscriptions that I labeled as being insufficient to convince me of anything.  If you present a compelling argument, of course I would reconsider.

Forget the inscriptions for a moment. That's just one of many aspects.

I'm not sure how or why you expect me to forget the inscriptions.  They are the basis of our little back-and-forth here.  If we forget them, what are we talking about?

The whole thing stinking goes way beyond just that. Also, regardless of court admissibility you can't really argue that it isn't tacky, damaging to police reputation, and speaks of low character. I mean you could but it would be flimsy.

If you want to move beyond the inscription and speak of the trial as a whole, we can do that also, but I'm less familiar with the specifics that I probably could be.  What I would say is, at the moment force was used, given the totality of circumstances, it doesn't surprise me Brailsford was acquitted of murder.  Shaver was reaching for his waistband and was reported to be armed.  That Langley (and, to a lesser extent, Brailsford) put them in that position of disadvantage in the first place becomes irrelevant.  People are hesitant to convict cops of murder in general, and especially when there is any way to explain away their action.  And I think murder was a stretch of a charge in the first place.

And you won't see me argue that it isn't tacky and it obviously has damaged police reputation.  As to character... meh.  I consider it likely to be just one of any number of things people have done without considering all the ways what they've done might come back and fuck them in the pooper.  I think he probably thought it was humorous, in a dark way.  And I assure you cops have a dark sense of humor.  We have to.

I am unfamiliar with that department's full range of policies, so perhaps isn't much it could do about items or clothing one of its officer owns and uses on their own private time, even if they do speak ill of his character. Also he's probably less likely to kill someone on the job with a weapon he doesn't use on the job, or a t-shirt. Also, with the authority and power wielded by the job, police should be held to a high standard of behavior and presentation even when off-duty.

I've already suggested that maybe the judge was legally correct in burying that detail. But it is bad optics.

Of course the judge was correct in suppressing the inscriptions.  That's been the majority of what I've been arguing all along.  Which is where the question I posed comes in.  If you think it should have been entered into evidence, where do you draw the line?  Is it only evidence if it's on the rifle he used?  Why would that matter?

Also I never suggested that he was gunning for Shaver all along. But maybe he was hoping to be put into a situation to kill someone so he could scratch that off his bucket list.

Wildly assuming and making up facts not in evidence.

Also, welcome back after 8 years.

<elvis>uh, thank yah; thank yah very much *lip curl*</elvis>

Assault-style weapons are banned in Canada effective immediately, the country's prime minister said Friday.

The move comes less than two weeks after Canada's deadliest rampage in modern history, when a gunman in Nova Scotia killed 22 people after a 12-hour reign of terror.

"You don't need an AR-15 to bring down a deer," Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said at a news conference in Ottawa. "So, effective immediately, it is no longer permitted to buy, sell, transport, import or use military-grade assault weapons in this country."

So almost every country but the U.S. in the English speaking world banned AR-15s.

I was listening to CBC Radio during lunch and the gun lobby folks in Canada were all calling in to express their rage. A couple of times they came close to calling it a 'god given right', I think forgetting that Canada doesn't even come close to having something resembling the right to bear arms. So glad we're not Americans with a sacred constitution written by men so long dead that they couldn't even fathom the existence of an AR-15.

it'll be a gorilla war my guy, we'll use the sneaky snek attacks we developed when raiding the fridge for cheese whiz at 2am while the wife snores

I think the missing piece here is that enforcement is much harder when they don't know who has registered guns or unregistered guns without a fair deal of effort. When nobody can have them, there's no question that when the neighbor sees you taking target practice in the backyard that you're not on the level.

Sure, it sucks that one bad apple spoiled the fun for everyone. Happens all the time.

You have to be stupid to join the reserves or national guard. America uses both as regular army when they are instead supposed to be defending the home front. It was a crime sending National guard to do combat patrols in Sadr City.

Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2020-05-01 17:04:48)

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'm sure the people with unregistered guns will be the first to hand them in.

Who said they'd hand them in? The police will take them as they find them? Like all crime? They don't pass a law and the criminals all say 'oh fuck, I guess I'd better turn myself in if I run afoul of that one???