HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|5967

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.

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.

Last edited by HollisHurlbut (2020-04-25 15:35:06)

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+634|3689
I am sorry for being rude. I had no idea I was speaking to a fellow member of law enforcement.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
Intent is a pretty standard issue in most areas of law, obviously American law is fucked up.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6741|PNW

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.
uziq
Member
+492|3422

Dilbert_X wrote:

Intent is a pretty standard issue in most areas of law, obviously American law is fucked up.
far from a 'standard issue' when you consider the number of extremely convoluted legal defences that deal with matters of intent. the concept of mens rea is not exactly empirical.

burden of proof is more apposite, here.
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|5967

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.
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|5967

Dilbert_X wrote:

Intent is a pretty standard issue in most areas of law, obviously American law is fucked up.
No claim was ever made, so far as I'm aware, that the force was unintentionally applied.  As such, the intent was obviously to cause death or serious bodily harm.  The question then becomes whether the state could show beyond a reasonable doubt that it was murder (the charge they chose to pursue).

The jury decided they did not.
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|5967

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.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6741|PNW

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.

wiki wrote:

Later that month, the Mesa Police Department fired Brailsford, citing several policy violations and unsatisfactory performance.[26] 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]
Also, not exactly a tactical modification up there with holographic sights and trigger guards, is it.

HH wrote:

that's not going to convince me of anything.
Yeah, not exactly surprised. You've already got your mind made up.

HH wrote:

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

edit:

HH wrote:

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 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. 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.

Also, welcome back after 8 years.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+634|3689
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.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6741|PNW

I'm fine with that if it's the special squad that hunts vampires.
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|5967

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>
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6741|PNW

Wildly assuming and making up facts not in evidence.
Kind of why I'm saying it's hard to prove, isn't it.

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?
I said "forget the inscriptions for a moment" in that instance because it is a minor aspect of this whole thing getting a disproportionate amount of attention in the thread. That doesn't mean I want you to purge it from your memory.

Other parts of our back and forth include your madman who harasses a cop every day for twenty years, and your hypotheticals about t-shirts and other firearms not used on duty. Mildly perplexing.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I've already acknowledged that I'm unsure about its admissibility in terms of character or establishing possible, but hard to prove, premeditation (not to specifically kill Shaver, but to take advantage of an opportunity to shoot someone; probably hard to prove against a policeman). The judge was probably right to bury it. However, it's still bad optics. The etching speaks of poor character, and makes me suspect that he might be a bit more gung ho about shooting civilians than I'd ideally want in American policemen. And it was apparently against department policy regardless of whether he owned the firearm or it was issued.

  • The hallway approach looked unsafe and seemed to put everyone at risk.
  • The orders were confusing and the increasingly agitated reaction to Shaver's attempts to follow them didn't make sense to me.
  • That the jury was intentionally kept in the dark on some details does not look good in the public eye, regardless of legal correctness.
  • It doesn't look look good that the sergeant later moved out of the country.
  • It doesn't look good that the shooter was (quietly?) brought back into the force long enough to be released on a PTSD paycheck.
  • One drop in the bucket in many avoidable cop-on-civilian incidents in America leading to increased public frustration with law enforcement.


I'd be interested to read a full transcript of the trial.

Ex-Mesa officer charged with murder testifies he was 'sad' after shooting 2017/12
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/lo … /907307001

A former Mesa police officer on trial in the fatal on-duty shooting of an unarmed Texas man who begged for his life testified Wednesday that he was "incredibly sad" after he killed him.

Philip Brailsford, 26, who is charged with second-degree murder in connection with the 2016 death of Daniel Shaver, 26, gave his first public account of the shooting in Maricopa County Superior Court.

“I felt incredibly sad for him. I assume he had a family," Brailsford said. "When I received knowledge that he was unarmed, I was in further disbelief."

Shaver's widow, Laney Sweet began to cry shortly after his words.

Shaver's mother also cried moments before, when Brailsford's lawyer, Michael Piccarreta showed his client stills of video footage depicting the moments before the former officer fired his AR-15 rifle.
I guess if he felt incredibly sad, then it's ok.

Goes on to insist that he thought the guy was "reaching." The whole thing was a cock-up of galling proportions, and one of many that are indicative of the police requiring more or different training.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+634|3689
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.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6602|949

if you take a kid's toy away, he gonna cry
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|5513|Toronto
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.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6602|949

bro, an army of overweight rednecks with ARs would whoop the US Military, you kiddin' me?
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|5513|Toronto
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
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
It does seem strange that a nut without a gun license using an illegally held gun means people with licences and legally held guns lose theirs.

But yeah, you don't need an AR15 to shoot deer. If people want to fulfil their patriotic duty they should join the reserves, but that means doing pushups and running up hills so I guess not.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|5513|Toronto
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.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
I'm sure the people with unregistered guns will be the first to hand them in.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+634|3689
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)

https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
Well obviously you'd have to be retarded to join the army in the US.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|5513|Toronto

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???
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6741|PNW

I'd be interested in reading the full law to see how it defines "military grade?" It would seem silly to just ban the cheap, semi-auto AR knock-offs if other (non-scary) weapons with large magazine capacities are unaffected just because they look like normal deer hunting rifles.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard