Killing of Daniel Shaver.

splinter65

Jawgap wrote: »

Which would be relevant if this happened in Texas, but it happened in Arizona.....Maricopa County (Phoenix), home of good ol' boy, former Sheriff Joe Arpaio

I’ve already corrected that. I’ve said the cops were poor. Deciding to drunkenly set up a rifle on a hotel balcony overlooking a swimming pool may not end well for you in a country with a lot of gun deaths. That’s all.

corner of hells

darkdubh wrote: »

corner of hells wrote: »

How can you tell someone's a psychopath by looking at their eyes ?
Your eyes are determined genetically.

Ridiculous analogy , is he diagnosed as a sociopath ?

Jawgap

splinter65 wrote: »

I’ve already corrected that. I’ve said the cops were poor. Deciding to drunkenly set up a rifle on a hotel balcony overlooking a swimming pool may not end well for you in a country with a lot of gun deaths. That’s all.

Set up a rifle?

Except he didn't - he pointed it momentarily out the window and not in the direction of the pool......the police were called (a reasonable reaction)......they arrived, telephoned the room and told the occupants to come out - the lady first......she came out, then he came out......they didn't storm the room.

Do you accept the evidence given by the investigating detective that Shaver was being compliant and that it was more than possible for the police to have secure him when he was prone? One other officer present said the gesture was not threatening and the detective also reckoned it was not as threatening as Brailsford suggested.

Another officer acknowledged that Shaver seem to be confused by all the instructions (he was subsequently found to be four times over the alcohol limit).

That being the case, how is it possible he was in any way responsible for his own death?

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

Set up a rifle?

Except he didn't - he pointed it momentarily out the window



That being the case, how is it possible he was in any way responsible for his own death?

You have just answered your own question. While the cop was grossly incompetent at his job, the seeds of this tragic incident were sown when the man pointed his rifle out the window- a very stupid and reckless act.

SoftMicro

Anyone who thinks this murder was justified or can empathize with the murderer needs their head examined IMO.

gctest50

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

He was told to put his left leg over his right and didn't know how to do it. The man was so drunk/confused/frightened he couldn't comprehend left from right. .................

He was sober n steady enough to be waving a scoped rifle out a window shortly before that

Ralf and Florian

The cop came across like he itching to shoot him and was just waiting for an excuse. He came across like it was some kind of sick game to him.

corner of hells

gctest50 wrote: »

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

He was told to put his left leg over his right and didn't know how to do it. The man was so drunk/confused/frightened he couldn't comprehend left from right. .................

He was sober n steady enough to be waving a scoped rifle out a window shortly before that

Four times over alcohol level limit sober too.

razorblunt

What an absolute clusterfúck of a scenario.
Both men scared witless, except one was in a position of authority.

The instruction were a mess, imagine being under that much duress and then being told if you messed up again they'd shoot you. Absolute madness.

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

You have just answered your own question. While the cop was grossly incompetent at his job, the seeds of this tragic incident were sown when the man pointed his rifle out the window- a very stupid and reckless act.

I'm not sayng a police response wasn't justified - I'm not even saying they were wrong to go in mob-handed armed with automatic weapons.....all of that was justified.

.....I'm just pointing out that, per the evidence from the detective, that once he was prone he could have been cuffed.....

.....even if they didn't want to go forward they could have tasered him while he was on the deck to be sure he was absolutely no threat.....or even set a K-9 on him to get him to stay prone.

BowSideChamp

Justified police shooting imo.

gctest50

Jawgap wrote: »

...................


.....I'm just pointing out that, per the evidence from the detective, that once he was prone he could have been cuffed.....

.....even if they didn't want to go forward they could have tasered him while he was on the deck to be sure he was absolutely no threat.....or even set a K-9 on him to get him to stay prone.

The police knew there was rifle in the room and maybe a few people

One of the police might have been shot by someone in the room if they went forward to cuff him

Getting yer man to crawl towards them reduces the risk

Jawgap

gctest50 wrote: »

The police knew there was rifle in the room and maybe a few people

One of the police might have been shot by someone in the room if they went forward to cuff him

Getting yer man to crawl towards them reduces the risk

So you reckon the investigating detective was wrong?

What about tasering him, or sending a dog in?

suicide_circus

This is part and parcel of American gun culture. This is how they want to live.

retro:electro

What the hell. He was shouting way too many confusing instructions at the guy. He had his head down when the person before him followed their instructions so he couldn't see how to do it. Totally unnecessary. 5 shots as well? That goes beyond any reasonable measure and into overkill.
He was just itching to shoot somebody.

gctest50

Jawgap wrote: »

.........


What about tasering him, or sending a dog in?

Taser him and he'd be in a pile, still too close to the door ( the hotel room doors are in a V-shape )

BowSideChamp

anna080 wrote: »

What the hell. He was shouting way too many confusing instructions at the guy. He had his head down when the person before him followed their instructions so he couldn't see how to do it. Totally unnecessary. 5 shots as well? That goes beyond any reasonable measure and into overkill.
He was just itching to shoot somebody.

It was a different police officer who was shouting the commands.

Jawgap

gctest50 wrote: »

Taser him and he'd be in a pile, still too close to the door ( the hotel room doors are in a V-shape )

Really? because the detective, who investigated the scene, reviewed the video evidence, interviewed the officers concerned etc, thought it (tasering) was a viable option......but you you know different?:rolleyes:

Have you been in that hotel?

gctest50

anna080 wrote: »

What the hell. He was shouting way too many confusing instructions at the guy. He had his head down when the person before him followed their instructions so he couldn't see how to do it. Totally unnecessary. 5 shots as well? That goes beyond any reasonable measure and into overkill.
He was just itching to shoot somebody.

Automatic :

retro:electro

razorblunt wrote: »

What an absolute clusterfúck of a scenario.
Both men scared witless, except one was in a position of authority.

The instruction were a mess, imagine being under that much duress and then being told if you messed up again they'd shoot you. Absolute madness.

Fcuking imagine.
You'd be concentrating so hard and trying to not do the wrong thing that you'd end up totally confused. Add drink/drugs/terror into the mix and you're bound to fcuk up.
Crazy.

riffmongous

Make a mistake and there is a good chance you will be shot, jesus christ

BowSideChamp

Jawgap wrote: »

Really? because the detective, who investigated the scene, reviewed the video evidence, interviewed the officers concerned etc, thought it (tasering) was a viable option......but you you know different?:rolleyes:

Have you been in that hotel?

The police went in with guns to respond to a threat of a man waving a rifle off a balconey. Perfectly reasonable.

The suspect reached down into his waistband. The policeman was covering the situation with a gun not a taser. To think he could put down his rifle and take out a taser in a split second on the off chance the threat was less than lethal is ridiculous.

riffmongous

BowSideChamp wrote: »

The police went in with guns to respond to a threat of a man waving a rifle off a balconey. Perfectly reasonable.

The suspect reached down into his waistband. The policeman was covering the situation with a gun not a taser. To think he could put down his rifle and take out a taser in a split second on the off chance the threat was less than lethal is ridiculous.

When he was lying on the ground being covered by the other policemen he could have been tazered

gctest50

Jawgap wrote: »

...............


Have you been in that hotel?

Those hotel room doors are in a V shape

Jawgap

BowSideChamp wrote: »

The police went in with guns to respond to a threat of a man waving a rifle off a balconey. Perfectly reasonable.

The suspect reached down into his waistband. The policeman was covering the situation with a gun not a taser. To think he could put down his rifle and take out a taser in a split second on the off chance the threat was less than lethal is ridiculous.

No, one of the other officers (Doan) had his taser out and was covering both the lady and Shaver - when the lady came forward he still had his taser out so any reason why he couldn't have zapped him?

Likewise - the more usual way to get a suspect to approach officers in this situation is to get them to pull their shirt up (to show there is nothing in the waistband) - then leave the shirt over their head, turning all the way around and then backing up towards the officers......that's not my fertile imagination, that's from the testimony of an experienced officer who gave evidence in Brailsford's trial.

weldoninhio

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Justified? No. Just no.

So the cop should wait to see if the suspect shoots at him first?? Suspect went for suicide by cop. Idiotic thing to do. Cop had zero option.

Rumple Stillson

There is absolutely no need for that kid to have been shot and killed given the context of the situation he was in. Anyone with any common sense could have surmised he was drunk, scared and confused. Should have been subdued quickly once he fell to the floor.

Jawgap

weldoninhio wrote: »

So the cop should wait to see if the suspect shoots at him first?? Suspect went for suicide by cop. Idiotic thing to do. Cop had zero option.

That's the whole point - there were numerous options......

.....cuffing him while prone

....hitting him with the taser

....sending a dog forward

....having him advance to the officers in a different manner

....or how about just not sending in a patrol officer with barely 2 years experience as point man with an AR-15......and just to note the AR-15 wasn't police issue, it was his own personal weapon he brought to work with him!!

weldoninhio

Jawgap wrote: »

That's the whole point - there were numerous options......

.....cuffing him while prone

....hitting him with the taser

....sending a dog forward

....having him advance to the officers in a different manner

....or how about just not sending in a patrol officer with barely 2 years experience as point man with an AR-15......and just to note the AR-15 wasn't police issue, it was his own personal weapon he brought to work with him!!

1. The hotel room wasn’t cleared, as far as they were concerned there was another person in the room with a high powered rifle, any officer moving towards the door was putting his life at risk.

2. Tazed, lies prone on floor, see point 1.

3. I’ve never seen a dog disarm someone, also do you think he would panic more or less if a dog attacks him??

4. They followed standard procedure. The female was able to follow the instructions without any issue.

Any other fairytales for us??

Ralf and Florian

weldoninhio wrote: »

So the cop should wait to see if the suspect shoots at him first?? Suspect went for suicide by cop. Idiotic thing to do. Cop had zero option.

You're clearly just trolling now.

riffmongous

ERG89 wrote: »

Let's hope opening a hotel room with a keycard is the next test as they had no clue how to. :pac:
Don't know how to react to the video tbh. The country itself is far too trigger happy but the last one to see that will be themselves.

I just saw that part of the video now, it's scary that people who can't even work a ****ing hotel door can hold such power of life and death over someone

riffmongous

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Land of the free

Whoever told you that is your enemy

weldoninhio

Ralf and Florian wrote: »

You're clearly just trolling now.

Have you watched the video?? He clearly reached for the back of his waistband.

Odhinn

Jawgap wrote: »

That's the whole point - there were numerous options......

.....cuffing him while prone

....hitting him with the taser

....sending a dog forward

....having him advance to the officers in a different manner

....or how about just not sending in a patrol officer with barely 2 years experience as point man with an AR-15......and just to note the AR-15 wasn't police issue, it was his own personal weapon he brought to work with him!!

According to the police report, Brailsford was carrying an AR-15 rifle with the phrase “You’re F—ed” etched into the weapon.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/08/graphic-video-shows-daniel-shaver-sobbing-and-begging-officer-for-his-life-before-2016-shooting/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-national%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.ce1a6fe20727

A wonderful human being, by the look of it.

Jawgap

weldoninhio wrote: »

1. The hotel room wasn’t cleared, as far as they were concerned there was another person in the room with a high powered rifle, any officer moving towards the door was putting his life at risk.

2. Tazed, lies prone on floor, see point 1.

3. I’ve never seen a dog disarm someone, also do you think he would panic more or less of a dog attacks him??

4. They followed standard procedure. The female was able to follow the instructions without any issue.

Any other fairytales for us??

1. No, the evidence and statements of the officers invovled indicates that as far as they were concerned there were only two people in the room - Sgt Langley admitted as much under cross-examination

2. The expert evidence of the invesitgators who reviewed the scene and the evidence was that it was safe for someone to go forward and cuff him. One officer already had the taser out all Langley had to do was tell him to zap Shaver

3. The whole point of K-9s is that they provoke the primeval fear we have of dogs and our immediate reaction is to cower - plus it puts the person's attention on the dog, not on the officers.

4. They didn't follow standard procedure. Again the evidence of the invesitgation team was that this was highly unusual procedure and the more usual procedure (shirt up, turnaround and walk backwards) wasn't followed - and no reasons were offered as to why it wasn't followed.

These aren't fairy tales......Brailsford's statement to the investigation team is online as is the testimony given by the investigators, and the evidence (and cross examination) of the other 5 officers present, at least one of whom said Shaver's actions did not appear threatening and another who said he appeared confused. The lead detective also offered an opinion, based on the videos from all the bodycams, that Shaver was being compliant and did not offer a threat.

The other, significant, point worth considering is that only one officer fired. Of 6 present, 3 with AR-15s, only 1 fired - none of the others even had sympathetic trigger pulls which, it was suggested in court, meant they did not perceive a threat as they were not primed to shoot.

Finally, if they felt they'd behaved lawfully why the doctoring of the statements to leave out the same key bits of information? Again, something that came up in court.

Rumple Stillson

Jawgap wrote: »

1. No, the evidence and statements of the officers invovled indicates that as far as they were concerned there were only two people in the room - Sgt Langley admitted as much under cross-examination

2. The expert evidence of the invesitgators who reviewed the scene and the evidence was that it was safe for someone to go forward and cuff him. One officer already had the taser out all Langley had to do was tell him to zap Shaver

3. The whole point of K-9s is that they provoke the primeval fear we have of dogs and our immediate reaction is to cower - plus it puts the person's attention on the dog, not on the officers.

4. They didn't follow standard procedure. Again the evidence of the invesitgation team was that this was highly unusual procedure and the more usual procedure (shirt up, turnaround and walk backwards) wasn't followed - and no reasons were offered as to why it wasn't followed.

These aren't fairy tales......Brailsford's statement to the investigation team is online as is the testimony given by the investigators, and the evidence (and cross examination) of the other 5 officers present, at least one of whom said Shaver's actions did not appear threatening and another who said he appeared confused. The lead detective also offered an opinion, based on the videos from all the bodycams, that Shaver was being compliant and did not offer a threat.

The other, significant, point worth considering is that only one officer fired. Of 6 present, 3 with AR-15s, only 1 fired - none of the others even had sympathetic trigger pulls which, it was suggested in court, meant they did not perceive a threat as they were not primed to shoot.

Finally, if they felt they'd behaved lawfully why the doctoring of the statements to leave out the same key bits of information? Again, something that came up in court.

End thread.

weldoninhio

Jawgap wrote: »

1. No, the evidence and statements of the officers invovled indicates that as far as they were concerned there were only two people in the room - Sgt Langley admitted as much under cross-examination

2. The expert evidence of the invesitgators who reviewed the scene and the evidence was that it was safe for someone to go forward and cuff him. One officer already had the taser out all Langley had to do was tell him to zap Shaver

3. The whole point of K-9s is that they provoke the primeval fear we have of dogs and our immediate reaction is to cower - plus it puts the person's attention on the dog, not on the officers.

4. They didn't follow standard procedure. Again the evidence of the invesitgation team was that this was highly unusual procedure and the more usual procedure (shirt up, turnaround and walk backwards) wasn't followed - and no reasons were offered as to why it wasn't followed.

These aren't fairy tales......Brailsford's statement to the investigation team is online as is the testimony given by the investigators, and the evidence (and cross examination) of the other 5 officers present, at least one of whom said Shaver's actions did not appear threatening and another who said he appeared confused. The lead detective also offered an opinion, based on the videos from all the bodycams, that Shaver was being compliant and did not offer a threat.

The other, significant, point worth considering is that only one officer fired. Of 6 present, 3 with AR-15s, only 1 fired - none of the others even had sympathetic trigger pulls which, it was suggested in court, meant they did not perceive a threat as they were not primed to shoot.

Finally, if they felt they'd behaved lawfully why the doctoring of the statements to leave out the same key bits of information? Again, something that came up in court.

The same court that cleared him??

gctest50

Rumple Stillson wrote: »

End thread.

Someones rantings don't matter

This does :

A police officer charged with the murder of an unarmed man in the US state of Arizona has been found not guilty.

Mr Brailsford was acquitted of murder and a lesser manslaughter charge.

Gatling

Good oul fashioned execution by a cop now unemployed but will likely end up on another Police force as a hero ,
One of the most obvious things that could have prevented the shooting was the idiot cop asking him to show he had nothing concealed in his waist band by raising his t-shirt while he was standing with his hands raised,

Odhinn

Gatling wrote: »

Good oul fashioned execution by a cop now unemployed but will likely end up on another Police force as a hero ,
One of the most obvious things that could have prevented the shooting was the idiot cop asking him to show he had nothing concealed in his waist band by raising his t-shirt while he was standing with his hands raised,

.....but he'd brought his big gun, and he wasn't going home without having had the chance to use it.

Ralf and Florian

weldoninhio wrote: »

Have you watched the video?? He clearly reached for the back of his waistband.

There is nothing in that video to suggest "suicide by cop". Do you even understand what the term means?

Jawgap

weldoninhio wrote: »

The same court that cleared him??

No, the court found him not guilty......they found the required burden of proof hadn't been met.

That still doesn't change the evidence, nor does it change the opinion of experienced police officers who've investigated the vase that there were plenty of other options for the officers concerned when they arrived on the scene.....

......Shaver's death was not an inevitable consequence of him brandishing the pellet gun.

weldoninhio

Ralf and Florian wrote: »

There is nothing in that video to suggest "suicide by cop". Do you even understand what the term means?

It means you do something which forces a police officer to shoot you. Something like, say, in an active gunman situation, reaching for your waistband after being told numerous times not to.

Wailin

To the people on here who think the cop took the correct course of action, you are cold blooded human beings. That young lad was murdered by a psychopath who has no right to be an officer of law. You should be ashamed of yourselves. I wonder would you come to the same conclusion if that was your son lying there.

weldoninhio

Jawgap wrote: »

No, the court found him not guilty......they found the required burden of proof hadn't been met.

That still doesn't change the evidence, nor does it change the opinion of experienced police officers who've investigated the vase that there were plenty of other options for the officers concerned when they arrived on the scene.....

......Shaver's death was not an inevitable consequence of him brandishing the pellet gun.

Your last sentence is 100% correct. It was, however, a consequence of him reaching back to his waistband after being told multiple times, to keep his hands in sight and away from his body.

Jawgap

weldoninhio wrote: »

It means you do something which forces a police officer to shoot you. Something like, say, in an active gunman situation, reaching for your waistband after being told numerous times not to.

I think you'll find that a prerequisite for suicide by cop is that the individual has to be suicidal in the first place......I've seen/read nothing to suggest he was suicidal

razorblunt

anna080 wrote: »

Fcuking imagine.
You'd be concentrating so hard and trying to not do the wrong thing that you'd end up totally confused. Add drink/drugs/terror into the mix and you're bound to fcuk up.
Crazy.

That's it exactly:
"link your legs"
"Put your hands on the floor in front of you"
"Get on your knees"
...confusion

"I said cross your fcking legs"
"put your hands up"
-other officer "put your hands straight up in the air"
-shooter "You drop your hands again we'll shoot you"
"now crawl forward"


I was having a tough time following it from my kitchen drinking a cup of tea FFS.

Odhinn

weldoninhio wrote: »

Your last sentence is 100% correct. It was, however, a consequence of him reaching back to his waistband after being told multiple times, to keep his hands in sight and away from his body.

He was being ordered to move in a way contrary to ordinary practice. There's a reason to abide by standard practice, and not bring what you saw on TV the night before, that being to avoid people being killed.

Ralf and Florian

weldoninhio wrote: »

It means you do something which forces a police officer to shoot you. Something like, say, in an active gunman situation, reaching for your waistband after being told numerous times not to.

It means deliberately setting out to get the police to shoot you, usually by pointing a gun at them. It's patently obvious that there was no way that guy wanted to get shot.

Jawgap

weldoninhio wrote: »

Your last sentence is 100% correct. It was, however, a consequence of him reaching back to his waistband after being told multiple times, to keep his hands in sight and away from his body.

Again, no.

Siper, the lead detective testified this was not threatening.....but I'm sure you know better than an experienced police detective.