[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Calexit gets go-ahead to start collecting signatures

Uranus Smells Like Rotten Eggs

Suicide of the West HOW THE REBIRTH OF TRIBALISM, POPULISM, NATIONALISM, AND IDENTITY POLITICS IS DESTROYING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY By JONAH GOLDBERG s

Total Control: New Measures Toward Global Totalitarianism

Civic Anarchism and Statism: I Believe in the State

'A Man Without Courage': Dershowitz Slams Comey for Leaking Trump Memos

Comey, the memos and the question of what’s classified

The 10 Highest BACs Ever Recorded (You are supposed to be dead at 0.4)

Woman fined $500 for saving free Delta Air Lines apple

Under attack, the FBI becomes a partisan battleground

Dad, Why Do I Have To Go To School?

Michigan town’s feud over military gear gets ugly

Democrats are getting desperate as Mueller stalls

Entire County Refuses to Obey New Gun Control Law, Declares Itself Gun Owner Sanctuary

Body Cam Shows Cops Never Got Out of Car to Look for Trapped Boy as He Died Right By Them

Penn State's 98-Year-Old Outing Club Is No Longer Allowed to Go Outside

14 Years Ago, Pat Tillman Was Killed and Gov’t Covered Up the Truth to His Death to Sell War

Strange Sounds in the Sky 2018

Strange Sounbds in the Sky 2018

Why I Won't Read James Comey's Book

The Sequel on The Conservative Cave on 22 Apr 2018

Hundreds of Muslims from Bangladesh breaching US border at Laredo, Texas

Revealed: Robert Mueller's FBI Repeatedly Abused Prosecutorial Discretion

A Pelosi joke

Mitt Romney fails to secure Utah GOP nomination, will face primary

Giuliani Looks To Swiftly End Mueller's Investigation

Man makes pipe-guns from scrap, sells them to gun “buyback” program for $300

Rocket Man no more: North Korea suspending nuclear and ICBM testing

Meanwhile in Sweden: Shootings And Grenade Attacks Are So Common, the Media Doesn’t Bother to Report Them Anymore (VIDEO)

Interview With Boy In ‘Chemical Attack’ Video: ‘We Didn’t See Any Chemical Attack Symptoms’

The Comey Memos Read Like The Diary Entries Of A Young Teenager

The Democratic (Democrat-Communist) Party filed a lawsuit alleging a conspiracy by Russian officials, the Trump campaign and Wikileaks to damage the Clinton campaign

Brooklyn postal worker arrested after 17,000 pieces of undelivered mail found

Facebook Suspends (Black) Conservative Comedian For Posting Abusive Messages Sent To Him

Bitter lessons 25 years after Waco, Texas, siege

Woman Calls Police Over Man Wearing Pro-Gun T-Shirt At Park

On This Day in 1914, US Military Slaughtered Kids in Colorado and JD Rockefeller Had Media Cover It Up

The Democrats’ circumstantial case against the president who beat them

DNC files suit alleging Russia, the Trump campaign, and WikiLeaks conspired to disrupt the 2016 election

The Oklahoma City Bombing - Were there additional explosive charges and additional bombers?

23 Years Later: The Oklahoma City Bombing Story You Were Never Told About

In Louisiana, Threatening to File a Complaint Against Police Can Lead to a Five-Year Prison Sentence

This Is The Problem: Out of Top 100 News Outlets, Not a Single One Questioned Syrian Attack

Child ‘Victim’ of Alleged Syrian Gas Attack Speaks Out, Says He Was Given Food to Make the Video

Police Go Undercover for Months, Spend Thousands to Bust FSU Quarterback with Tiny Bit of Weed

Flashback: Vice President Joe Biden: No improper motive by feds at Waco, the Davidians “committed suicide”

US Intel Officials Just Admitted U.S. Bombed Syria with No Proof of Sarin Attack

If you like eating dogs, prepare for a ban

Men arrested at Starbucks were there for business meeting hoping to change 'our lives’

640 pounds of high explosives stolen from pipeline site


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Daniel Shaver's shooting by police officer was an avoidable execution
Source: CNN
URL Source: http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/opini ... ng-opinion-gagliano/index.html
Published: Dec 12, 2017
Author: James A. Gagliano
Post Date: 2017-12-13 09:42:44 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 153
Comments: 34

James A. Gagliano is a CNN law enforcement analyst and a retired FBI supervisory special agent. He also serves as an adjunct assistant professor at St. John's University in Queens, New York. Follow him on Twitter @JamesAGagliano. The views expressed in this commentary are his own.

(CNN)While in Mesa, Arizona on a business trip for his Texas-based pest control company in 2016, Daniel Shaver was slaughtered in a hotel hallway. And though the Arizona jury that acquitted the officer, 27-year-old Philip "Mitch" Brailsford, of second-degree murder and reckless manslaughter charges may have gotten it right according to a legal standard, a confluence of interrelated errors by the tactical team transpired to cause this tragedy, and it was entirely preventable.

James Gagliano
Then, I forced myself to rewatch the stomach-turning video many times over from the perspective of someone who has participated in hundreds upon hundreds of tactical resolution incidents.
    Yes, two months following the shooting, Brailsford was fired from the Mesa Police Department for violating department policy -- including having the words "You're F*****" engraved on the barrel of his personal, department-approved AR-15. And, presumably, the jury determined that movements by a confused and intoxicated Shaver could have been interpreted as making furtive gestures in effort to retrieve a concealed weapon -- of which none was ever recovered from the victim's body.
    Those "furtive movements" might very well have given Brailsford, in the jury's eyes, a legal right to shoot Shaver. But the officer's unprofessional conduct, seeming inexperience, and the confusing commands we hear being issued by a SWAT officer, directly and indirectly influenced Shaver's reactions, which resulted in the shooting. Here's how:

    The SWAT team member issuing the initial commands instigated non-compliant situation.

    In a quarter-century of participating in and leading tactical resolution operations, I have never heard a law enforcement professional use such offensive -- almost taunting -- rhetoric. The vocal police officer tasked with directing the operation appeared hell-bent on baiting a confused but receptive and compliant subject into making a deadly mistake.
    Was this related to a dysfunctional team or to this officer's inexperience or lack of emotional maturity and control? What police executive with oversight of tactical operations could have felt this officer possessed the leadership and interpersonal skills necessary to de-escalate potentially combustible situations?
    In high-stress in extremis situations with a noncompliant subject who purposely disregards commands, it is understandable that law enforcement officers may issue loud, get-your-attention directions -- sometimes laced with profanity that can be commensurate with the gravity of a potentially dangerous encounter. But these cases typically involve a physical confrontation or potentially deadly standoff.
    Absent the dispatch call of "weapon(s) in a hotel room," there is no evidence on the video that justifies the officer's need to vocally ratchet up the temperature. Listening to him issue commands was revolting -- he comes off as a drunk-with-power bully who enjoys toying with his prey.
    Examples of inappropriate and unconscionable language:
    (0:26) "Apparently we have a failure for you to comprehend simple instructions."
    (0:49) "Shut up! I'm not here to be tactful or diplomatic with you. You listen. You obey."
    (2:08) (to a woman who had exited the room ahead of Shaver) "Young lady, shut up and listen."
    (4:10) (screaming) "You think you're going to fall, you better fall on your face."
    The officer issuing commands also referred to Shaver, 26, as "young man." A simple "sir" or "ma'am" is standard professional vernacular in dealing with potential arrestees. It can be issued sternly, but respectfully. In my estimation, his use of the word "young" when addressing Shaver and his hotel guest was as a condescending pejorative.

    Failure of SWAT's senior onscene leadership to acknowledge mitigating factors.

    When issuing commands, an officer needs to immediately assess external factors. Can the subject hear me? Is there a language barrier? Are my commands concise and clear enough? The confusing and contradictory commands exacerbated the situation. In incidents like this, officers must have rehearsed in training -- countless times -- the commands to be used in high-risk arrests. Brevity and succinctness are critical.
    An inquiry was made as to whether or not Shaver had been drinking. If someone is inebriated, their default response may be a denial. Communication -- reading the signs -- involves intuitive analysis that takes in a person's body language, tone of voice, and selected verbiage. Police posted at DUI checkpoints are trained for the telltale physical signs of alcohol consumption.
    This officer also should have noted how visibly shaken and fearful the subject was. It is true that duplicitous subjects may attempt to employ a ruse to get the officer to relax or drop his guard. But in this instance, you had a tactical team, strength in numbers, and a position of command resulting from the element of surprise.

    My belief is that as confused (and inebriated) as Shaver was, the steady volley of confusing shouted commands frustrated him and he assumed a pose he felt was consistent with an arrest, i.e., placing his hands behind his back. His confused state and reflexive reaction to place hands behind his back could then be "interpreted" as "going for a weapon."
    Two more gestures to his backside appear to be his attempts to pull his pants up while complying with a flurry of confusing commands. While we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, my assessment is that this officer was not equipped with the necessary behavioral assessment experience.

    The SWAT team disregarded arrest protocols.

    What appears obvious from the video is the senior onscene officer's inability to discern that subject was struggling to find his balance while complying with the confusing commands. To those speculating as to why he would have been asked to cross his ankles, this is standard arrest protocol in a high-risk scenario. If a subject is lying prone or kneeling with their ankles crossed, the un-crossing of ankles requires an additional movement prior to any effort to escape or physically confront arresting officers. This provides officers more reaction time.
    But asking a subject to crawl forward with crossed ankles is not a standard safe arrest practice or protocol. The most forward operator does not typically deliver commands, as his specific role is to focus on the door down the hallway from which the subjects had just exited. Shaver could have been asked to lie prone and await cuffing from advancing officers, while this "hallway monitor" remains trained on the door ahead. Then, the advance man (Brailsford) could hurriedly move forward past a prone Shaver (with interlaced fingers behind his head) and then a "cuffing team" could immediately move forward in trace, and effect the handcuffing of the subject.
    Alternatively, Shaver could have been put on his knees, with fingers interlaced and hands placed atop his head. Brailsford could have had him rotate in a circle and then remain facing away from responding officers, so police could view his beltline and any potential secreted weapons. Shaver could have then been instructed to lift his shirt while facing away. This gives police valuable time to assess the threat and respond with deadly force appropriately if Shaver were to pull a weapon, spin around and attempt to locate a target.
    At trial, Deputy County Attorney Susie Charbel told the jury that Shaver was intoxicated and still referred to Brailsford's actions as that of a "killer."
    And while Brailsford, as the shooter, stood trial alone, the team's leadership surely deserves a fair amount of the criticism. The toxicology report would definitively chronicle what Shaver's blood alcohol content level was. His apparent alcohol impairment combined with the rational fear any reasonable person would be consumed with in a similar situation. These circumstances then abruptly collided bluntly with the unforced errors committed by the tactical team --- and the result was a shooting that shouldn't have occurred.

    Officers should have gathered more intelligence.

    Allow for potential cooperation from the two subjects in your custody to provide you better context and intelligence. Ask questions about weaponry in the room and, if subject admits as much, query the purpose for having them. Maybe Shaver could have explained his professional need for pellet guns and advised where they were located. At a minimum, it would have applied context. You never trust without verification, but Shaver's explanation could have been combined with information investigators might have gathered from employees at the front desk while SWAT was handling the threat upstairs.
    Follow CNN Opinion

    Join us on Twitter and Facebook

    Many of the police shootings that have drawn attention to the inappropriate and all too often deadly actions of officers illustrate the role of race and implicit bias in their devastating outcomes. The case of Philip Brailsford illustrates something different -- a young, inexperienced police officer who was part of a team comprised of specialists (one who exhibited unprofessionalism and lack of expertise in issuing commands) ill-suited to read a less-than-complex set of circumstances, leading to a series of preventable errors that resulted in the infuriatingly "legal" execution of a man.
    In the numerous officer-involved shootings I've reviewed, I can often provide a sensible explanation for a tactical team's actions or find benefit of the doubt to apply.
    There are neither here.
    A previous version of this article incorrectly identified Philip Brailsford as the officer giving commands in the video. Another officer testified during the trial that he, not Brailsford, was issuing those commands so this article has been updated to reflect that the other officer was the one giving commands.
    (10 images)

    Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


    TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

    #1. To: Gatlin, Misterwhite, GrandIsland, A K A Stone, Stoner, Pinguinite (#0) (Edited)

    Seems to me that the author of this article knows what he is talking about here and has the experience to back up his opinion.

    James A. Gagliano, a 1987 West Point graduate, joined the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a Special Agent in 1991. In 1997, Gagliano was selected for the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team and participated in numerous overseas deployments and high-risk tactical resolutions.

    In November 2002, he was selected as the Senior Team Leader of the 45-man FBI New York Office SWAT Team and also served as an attachment to Joint Special Operations Command units in Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom between 2002 and 2003.

    In November 2005, Mr. Gagliano was named to head the FBI’s Crisis Management and 24/7 Operations Center Programs in New York. Assignments included oversight of the SWAT Program, Crisis Negotiation, the Special Agent Bomb Technicians, and the Hazardous Materials Response Team.

    Between 2008 and 2015, Gagliano held a variety of positions to include Supervisory Senior Resident Agent for the Hudson Valley Resident Agency (HVRA), Acting Legal Attaché in Mexico City, Mexico, and Chief-of-Staff (Special Assistant to the Assistant-Director-in-Charge) for the FBI’s New York Office.

    He is currently an adjunct assistant professor at St. John’s University and frequently provides on-air analysis for CNN and Headline News.

    He and other SWAT Team colleagues were awarded the FBI’s Medal for Bravery for their roles in the June 1993 apprehension of terrorists planning to bomb the Holland Tunnel and other New York City landmarks.

    “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

    Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

    Deckard  posted on  2017-12-13   10:28:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #2. To: Deckard (#1)

    *yawwwwwwn*

    Get help for your extreme OCD.

    Liberator  posted on  2017-12-13   10:32:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #3. To: Deckard (#0)

    A great write-up. I concur with this analysis entirely. The cop issuing commands needlessly escalated the situation and contributed to the outcome of Shaver's killing. If Brailsford was the one issuing all those commands which ended in his killing, I think it much more likely he would have been convicted of murder.

    I do maintain that in this situation, Shaver would still be alive if he had refused to comply with the confrontational, confusing and disrespectful commands issued by the cop. He should have simply and slowly gone down to the floor, face down, spread eagle (or okay, perhaps with ankles crossed), and refused to do any of the simon says commands. The police then would have to figure out how to resolve the situation and certainly Shaver would have been screamed at even more, but as long as he gave no reason think he was going to pull a gun, they would be legally barred from shooting him.

    IMO, the shouting cop should have been on trial for murder along side Brailsford. In any civilian context, it's not just a shooter that is tried for murder, but all accomplices that contributed in any way to the outcome.

    Pinguinite  posted on  2017-12-13   10:40:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #4. To: Pinguinite (#3)

    I concur with this analysis entirely. The cop issuing commands needlessly escalated the situation and contributed to the outcome of Shaver's killing. If Brailsford was the one issuing all those commands which ended in his killing, I think it much more likely he would have been convicted of murder.

    I agree, and the fact that it comes from a retired FBI Special Agent carries a lot of weight.

    I'm sure some here will claim that he "works" for CNN so his opinion is biased but that's simply not true. He's a law enforcement analyst who contributes to the network.

    In any case - the guy sure has the experience and credentials to make an impressive case against the cops who initiated the unwarranted shooting of an unarmed and innocent man who was begging for his life.

    “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

    Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

    Deckard  posted on  2017-12-13   10:48:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #5. To: Liberator (#2)

    *yawwwwwwn*

    I don't know about you, but I find this opinion penned by a former FBI Special Agent riveting.

    Perhaps you should read up on the case before commenting?

    “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

    Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

    Deckard  posted on  2017-12-13   10:50:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #6. To: Deckard (#0)

    Seems to me that the author of this article knows what he is talking about here and has the experience to back up his opinion.
    It can seem to you whatever you want it to seem to you.

    And your testimony that the author “seems” to know what he is talking about is merely YOUR opinion.

    Furthermore, the author of this article is simply stating HIS opinion.

    So with all the opinions and opinions about opinions set aside….and for those who have so far been unable to….let them now learn to deal with one specific fact.

    The specific fact is that an eight-member jury of the cops peers listened to six weeks of testimony and saw a video before that jury rendered a lawful and the un- appealed verdict of NOT GUILTY.

    Now there is a fact….while remembering that opinions are like assholes, every idiot has one.

    Gatlin  posted on  2017-12-13   10:54:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #7. To: Deckard (#5)

    riveting

    “Riveting”….you say?

    Come on, drama queen.

    YAWNnnnn …

    Gatlin  posted on  2017-12-13   10:56:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #8. To: Gatlin (#6)

    Furthermore, the author of this article is simply stating HIS opinion.

    As a former FBI Special Agent, former head of the FBI’s Crisis Management and 24/7 Operations Center Programs, former Senior Team Leader of the 45-man FBI New York Office SWAT Team and former member of the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team.

    I'd say his opinion counts for a lot.

    He has pretty much validated the opinions of others here on this site who can see that this was an unneccessay execution - murder if you like.

    “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

    Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

    Deckard  posted on  2017-12-13   10:59:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #9. To: Gatlin (#7)

    riveting

    “Riveting”….you say?

    I'm guessing you pulled a Gatlin and didn't bother to read it.

    “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

    Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

    Deckard  posted on  2017-12-13   10:59:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #10. To: Deckard (#4)

    In any case - the guy sure has the experience and credentials to make an impressive case against the cops who initiated the unwarranted shooting of an unarmed and innocent man who was begging for his life.

    I prefer to place more weight on consideration of the points he made rather than his experience. But yes, that he has professional experience should certainly give LEOs more cause to consider what he says.

    If the conduct of police on the video is to be considered legally acceptable, then civilians absolutely DO need to be trained in how to respond when they are at the receiving end of this type of police conduct. Students in schools need to be trained in how not to give police a legal right to kill them.

    Police unions will hate that, of course, for putting police in a bad light, but if they want the conduct shown on the vid to be considered acceptable, then .... screw 'em.

    Pinguinite  posted on  2017-12-13   11:02:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #11. To: Deckard (#9)

    You warded me off with concern of being “riveted.”

    “Riveted?”

    Come on….really?

    Gatlin  posted on  2017-12-13   11:05:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #12. To: Deckard (#8)

    I'd say his opinion counts for a lot.

    Sure they do….to you.

    His opinions counts for a lot to you ONLY because they reinforce your opinions.

    Gatlin  posted on  2017-12-13   11:09:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #13. To: Deckard (#4)

    I'm sure some here will claim that he "works" for CNN so his opinion is biased but that's simply not true.

    Ridiculous.

    Well maybe not, let’s check and see

    Does anyone here claim the he “works” for CNN and because of that his opinion is biased?

    If so….let’s hear from you …

    Gatlin  posted on  2017-12-13   11:14:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #14. To: Gatlin (#12)

    His opinions counts for a lot to you ONLY because they reinforce your opinions.

    Frankly, I'm surprised that they don't count with you.

    After all the author is a highly decorated FBI cop.

    I though for sure someone as open-minded and a seeker of truth like you would value ALL opinions.

    “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

    Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

    Deckard  posted on  2017-12-13   11:21:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #15. To: Deckard (#8)

    He has pretty much validated the opinions of others ..
    Hmmm …

    Let’s see now: You say that his “opinion” pretty much validates the “opinion” of others …

    Tell me exactly how does that work….that ”an opinion validates other “opinions?”

    You are forever lost in the whirlpool of unreality….just spinning your life away, aimlessly.

    Gatlin  posted on  2017-12-13   11:23:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #16. To: Deckard (#14) (Edited)

    His opinions counts for a lot to you ONLY because they reinforce your opinions.

    Frankly, I'm surprised that they don't count with you.

    Opinions NEVER count with me….they are merely something I read and carefully consider.

    This should be of no surprise to you …

    After all the author is a highly decorated FBI cop.

    An opinion from anyone is still just that to me….an opinion.

    I though for sure someone as open-minded and a seeker of truth like you would value ALL opinions.

    I value TRUTH.

    And the truth is that the jury acquitted the cop.

    Now, you need to learn to value and handle TRUTH.

    Gatlin  posted on  2017-12-13   11:28:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #17. To: Deckard (#0)

    "including having the words "You're F*****" engraved on the barrel of his personal, department-approved AR-15."

    It wasn't "engraved on the barrel". It was printed inside the dust cover of his own AR-15. It's only visible after the weapon is fired. Otherwise it would make no sense.

    misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-13   11:37:39 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #18. To: Deckard (#0)

    as making furtive gestures in effort to retrieve a concealed weapon -- of which none was ever recovered from the victim's body.

    Gosh. If he only knew that then. But how could he?

    Let's remember, he was called to the scene because of a "man with a gun". Why would he assume otherwise?

    Let's also remember that two of his friends exited the room under the eyes of the same officer and they weren't shot.

    misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-13   11:44:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #19. To: Deckard (#1)

    Seems to me that the author of this article knows what he is talking about here and has the experience to back up his opinion.

    He admits ... "While we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight".

    Everybody's oh so smart after the fact. He's had months to write a response. The officer had one second to react. Hardly fair.

    The jury acquitted him. Can we fucking move on?

    misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-13   11:50:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #20. To: Gatlin (#16)

    And the truth is that the jury acquitted the cop.

    He only accepts a jury verdict when they find a cop guilty of something, and he'll go apeshit crazy if you dare to question their decision.

    misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-13   11:54:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #21. To: Deckard, Hondo68, Willie Green (#5) (Edited)

    I don't know about you, but I find this opinion penned by a former FBI Special Agent riveting.

    It may be.

    But because you've posted so frivolously and often in a quest/agenda to discredit ALL cops, you may as well now be crying "Wolf!"

    When you spam a side bar NON-STOP with basically nothing but anti-Cop and pro-Pot stories day in and day out, you lose cred. Sorry.

    Once you turned to the dark side and played Devil's Advocate AGAINST Trump, you became..."THEM."

    Watching your posts, Hondo's and Willie Green's has become like watching MSNBC, CNN, and CBS.

    Liberator  posted on  2017-12-13   11:55:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #22. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#19)

    The jury acquitted him. Can we fucking move on?

    Awh, how nice of you to try and stop him from …

    Gatlin  posted on  2017-12-13   12:00:15 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #23. To: Gatlin, Deckard (#15)

    Hmmm …

    Let’s see now: You say that his “opinion” pretty much validates the “opinion” of others …

    Tell me exactly how does that work….that ”an opinion validates other “opinions?”

    You are forever lost in the whirlpool of unreality….just spinning your life away, aimlessly.

    Deckard, now you've managed to do the impossible:

    You've made Gatlin seem like Yoda.

    Whoa.

    Liberator  posted on  2017-12-13   12:00:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #24. To: Gatlin (#15)

    Tell me exactly how does that work….that ”an opinion validates other “opinions?”

    Hey, hey. That worked in Hitler's Germany.

    misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-13   12:09:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #25. To: Liberator (#21)

    Watching your posts, Hondo's and Willie Green's has become like watching MSNBC, CNN, and CBS.

    Then quit your goddam whining, get off your fat lazy ass and post your own friggin articles...

    Willie Green  posted on  2017-12-13   12:16:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #26. To: Willie Green (#25)

    Get off your fat lazy ass and post your own friggin articles...

    You're just a puppet, Willie. A tool. A stooge.

    Don't EVER think what you do here is noble, credible, or even honest.

    I feel sorry for you. Yet...regard you with the same contempt I do any masochist who enslaves and degrades himself...and tries to convince others of the same. That's shit you're wallowing in, Willie. SHIT.

    Liberator  posted on  2017-12-13   12:39:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #27. To: Liberator (#26)

    You're totally clueless... and projecting your own pitiful self-loathing onto others...

    Willie Green  posted on  2017-12-13   13:11:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #28. To: Willie Green (#27)

    You're totally clueless... and projecting your own pitiful self-loathing onto others...

    Nope. Even YOU realize I'm merely holding up a mirror FOR YOU, Willie.

    You see -- I knew you back when....

    I truly am sorry you lost yourself.

    Liberator  posted on  2017-12-13   13:19:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #29. To: misterwhite (#24)

    Tell me exactly how does that work….that ”an opinion validates other “opinions?”

    Hey, hey. That worked in Hitler's Germany.

    Yea, it did.

    I am however “riveted” with amazement that Deckard didn’t see the gross stupidity in his statement.

    But then, nothing should surprise me when it comes from that poor boy.

    Gatlin  posted on  2017-12-13   13:21:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #30. To: misterwhite (#17)

    It wasn't "engraved on the barrel". It was printed inside the dust cover of his own AR-15. It's only visible after the weapon is fired.

    Indeed the article was incorrect on that point.

    And, yes, it's only normally visible after the rifle is fired, and in Brailsford's case, it's exposure made it true not only to Shaver but to Brailsford himself as it got him fired and came close to being considered in his murder trial pertaining to his state of mind.

    And though he was acquitted, the stress of a murder trial is immeasurable for the accused, assuming they are not full fledged delinquents. He will go the rest of his life with that experience etched in his psych, if not the guilt of causing an innocent man to die.

    Pinguinite  posted on  2017-12-13   13:36:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #31. To: Pinguinite (#30)

    as it got him fired and came close to being considered in his murder trial pertaining to his state of mind.

    Life's a funny thing. Had he used that rifle to shoot a terrorist about to detonate a suicide vest, that inscription wouldn't even have been brought up.

    misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-13   16:09:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #32. To: Gatlin (#29)

    I am however “riveted” with amazement that Deckard didn’t see the gross stupidity in his statement.

    He believes in a personal moral code (rather than a social moral code). Therefore, the more people who think the way he does the better. He hopes to prevail by sheer numbers.

    misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-13   16:14:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #33. To: misterwhite (#32)

    I am however “riveted” with amazement that Deckard didn’t see the gross stupidity in his statement.

    He believes in a personal moral code (rather than a social moral code). Therefore, the more people who think the way he does the better. He hopes to prevail by sheer numbers.

    I can see that and understand the reasoning. And to get to those numbers he seeks, his tactic is to try and dominate with sheer volume the articles he posts supporting his two agenda positions and then try to dominate the thread by attempting to browbeat the respondents in that he continually demands that everyone accept something he proclaims. That is why instead of just one “bad cop” or one “bad government” article….he will generally post two, three and sometime more al most in sequence.

    After posting the articles, he then strives to overpower again with sheer volume the number of posts using other peoples ideas and thoughts he stored away in a vast repository categorized by subject so that he can almost instantly reach in and grab a pre-programmed active link, add a few word and then post it.

    I find he is stymied when personalize responses shift from a reactive posture to proactive to go head on with him. He simply cannot handle that and then resorts to more barrage spamming.

    I do find him to be both complex and strikingly interesting in a bizarre manner and I hope I haven’t driven him off completely….because it is amusing to toy with him between my other activities working on the Web.

    Gatlin  posted on  2017-12-13   16:57:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    #34. To: misterwhite (#31)

    Life's a funny thing.

    Yes, life is a funny thing. Just to think that the Maricopa County Attorney was trying to discuss a plea deal back in March so Brailsford could cop a plea to second-degree murder.

    Gatlin  posted on  2017-12-13   17:09:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


    TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

    [Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

    Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com