Killing of Daniel Shaver.

weldoninhio

Chrongen wrote: »

The police know when someone is unarmed. They know full well when someone is not carrying a gun. That's when they decide to shoot and make up some bullsh1t story as if we are idiots. They NEVER seem to fire when a suspect is armed and the KNOW he is armed because they are chicken.

And for those who think these cops are putting their lives on the line I would say bullsh1t. It's one of the cushiest gigs you can land. Far more farmers, lumberjacks, construction workers and fishermen are killed while "in the line of duty" that these trigger happy, psycho cops.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

wakka12

brendanwalsh wrote: »

The US is a strange country. Populated a few centuries ago by the dregs of Europe, the feral citizens we didn't want carted across the Atlantic. This has resulted in a very shallow but soiled gene pool replicating itself. The mental health issues in that country are insane. This cop is a murderer and nothing else.

That country is a very dangerous place to live.

Horrible country but the gene pools not the problem less than 60% of americans descend from the original dregs of european society you're talking about

valoren

"Please don't shoot me... I'm trying to do what you tell me."

SHUT UP!

To me, even in the stressful situation the cops found themselves in (particularly in light of the Las Vegas incident), perhaps actually LISTENING wouldn't have been too much to ask. For me, Shaver was a dead man regardless as the cops were clearly itching to unleash and kill. While what happened is incredibly disturbing, that this guy was acquitted is infuriating. There is a zero tolerance policy and there is common sense policing ffs.

He was on the ground. Pleading for his life. If those cops were in any way professional he would still be alive. Watching the video you can feel that they are looking for even the flimsiest of excuses to fire. And don't give me that bull**** about how he shouldn't have reached for his belt. The guy was prone on the ground for an incredibly long time as if it was being allowed to play out for him to make any mistake and then for him to be murdered.

SIX of them between them couldn't apprehend him using whatever procedure they have for prone suspects lying on the ground. He was subjected to a barrage of contradicting, confused instructions that were being shouted and screamed at him in a quiet corridor in sickening power trip by an officer who was quite clearly out of his depth in dealing with the situation competently, professionally and properly.

For the majority of cops doing their level best to 'serve and protect', there will always be those one or two assholes who completely undermine them.

MarcusP12

weldoninhio wrote: »

One cop shot, once one has shot there was no need for them all to open fire. It’s not the Wild West. I’d imagine all 6 weren’t on him. Some would have been dealing with the female, others covering the hotel door. A second cop did state in the court case that he was about to shoot but the other cop shot first. He also seen the reaching to his waistband as a threat.

I do accept that not all 6 may have been targeting him. However, I do not accept that if all officers felt there was an immediate threat, they would not have fired. We've all seen plenty of similar tense situations involving more than one police officer whereby more than one officer has fired at the imminent threat. That only the one guy here fired, is noteworthy. Also, if I was a jury member, I wouldn't have necessarily taken the statement of "I didn't shoot cuz my bro beside me shot first" at face value. I suspect he was just trying not to make the situation worse for his colleague. THink about it, if you were in the situation and genuinely thought your life was in danger by the actions of the guy you, as a team, were "bringing in", would you wait to see if your colleague was going to shoot first? Really? Just my opinion.....again I say it, very f**ked up situation with absolute not good having come of it....

Chrongen

Chrongen wrote: »

The parallel universe in which these dopey, insecure and inadequate US cops live...if someone puts their hands in the air the dummies pulls the trigger and claim he was reaching for a light sabre concealed in the light bulb. Fcuking idiots.

tough job, my bollocks.

You're right, of course. Police should always wait until one of them has been shot before using the weapons.

MarcusP12

weldoninhio wrote: »

At least one other officer reported aiming a service weapon at Shaver after he unexpectedly reached toward his waistband.

“The male was instructed to crawl towards us with his hands in the air,” that officer said in a supplemental report. “As the male came close to us I saw him abruptly drop his right hand from above his head and reach back to the small of his back. I immediately perceived this as a threat and a movement to reach a handgun.”

Something here does not make sense. I might be wrong but wasn't the guy wearing a t shirt? If so, in the crouched crawling position, "the small of his back" would have been quite visible, which is where the above suggested he was reaching for the imaginary weapon. In that position and with that visibility, surely the t-shirt would have drapped over anything he was concealing in that location so should have been obvious if there was a handgun where he was reaching. I just don't buy it. I think they were all so highly strung and as soon as he messed up and made a move which could be interpreted as a reach for a weapon, the most highly strung of them all flinched and took him out....the more I think about it the less understanding I am and the more futile it was. Again, says a lot about the American relationship with guns that this guy was acquitted....

weldoninhio

MarcusP12 wrote: »

I do accept that not all 6 may have been targeting him. However, I do not accept that if all officers felt there was an immediate threat, they would not have fired. We've all seen plenty of similar tense situations involving more than one police officer whereby more than one officer has fired at the imminent threat. That only the one guy here fired, is noteworthy. Also, if I was a jury member, I wouldn't have necessarily taken the statement of "I didn't shoot cuz my bro beside me shot first" at face value. I suspect he was just trying not to make the situation worse for his colleague. THink about it, if you were in the situation and genuinely thought your life was in danger by the actions of the guy you, as a team, were "bringing in", would you wait to see if your colleague was going to shoot first? Really? Just my opinion.....again I say it, very f**ked up situation with absolute not good having come of it....

Grand, so we discount the reports from people who were actually there and go on what we think we would have done???

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

At least one other officer reported aiming a service weapon at Shaver after he unexpectedly reached toward his waistband.

“The male was instructed to crawl towards us with his hands in the air,” that officer said in a supplemental report. “As the male came close to us I saw him abruptly drop his right hand from above his head and reach back to the small of his back. I immediately perceived this as a threat and a movement to reach a handgun.”

No. You are only allowed to note the testimony that supports your pre determination.

wakka12

I don't know how there aren't even more anti police riots going on in us at the moment. Its just so sickeningly corrupt, Im not one for protests and riots but Id be out marching for this

McMurphy

weldoninhio wrote: »

At least one other officer reported aiming a service weapon at Shaver after he unexpectedly reached toward his waistband.

“The male was instructed to crawl towards us with his hands in the air,” that officer said in a supplemental report. “As the male came close to us I saw him abruptly drop his right hand from above his head and reach back to the small of his back. I immediately perceived this as a threat and a movement to reach a handgun.”

Herein lies the confusion, and over convoluted contradictory instructions being barked out.

How does one crawl with hands in the air

These contradictory and confusing commands led to the victims death no two ways about it.

valoren

By all means shout and scream at a suspect. But when you have that suspect down facing the ground and they have their arms over their head how hard was it to issue and order for an officer to handcuff him while one cop with an automatic rifle covered the door behind them?

Why go through the charade of screaming muddled, contradictory instructions? He was apprehended as it was.

It was a cluster **** of incompetence by these cops and hopefully the victims partner and his family get justice from the wrongful death cases they've had to take up.

weldoninhio

valoren wrote: »

By all means shout and scream at a suspect. But when you have that suspect down facing the ground and they have their arms over their head how hard was it to issue and order for an officer to handcuff him while one cop with an automatic rifle covered the door behind them?

Why go through the charade of screaming muddled, contradictory instructions? He was apprehended as it was.

It was a cluster **** of incompetence by these cops and hopefully the victims partner and his family get justice from the wrongful death cases they've had to take up.

Would the guy covering the door have x-ray specs? Or should all hotel doors be made bulletproof??

goose2005

punisher5112 wrote: »

Hold on....

He did reach to his waist area so please stop spouting rubbish.

How were they to know he wasn't armed.

Because they already saw him lying on his front, if he had a gun there would be a bulge visible.

Go look at some other videos where cops get shot by thugs who seem compliant.

Police seem to spend too much time watching those videos and not enough videos where police shoot innocent people

goose2005

sorry

MarcusP12

weldoninhio wrote: »

Grand, so we discount the reports from people who were actually there and go on what we think we would have done???

Did I say I would discount it? Maybe I should clarify what I mean by not taking it as face value. What I mean is I would challenge that in deliberations if I was in the jury. I would make the point of it not making much sense for the reasons stated. Is that not the point of a jury? To discuss and challenge the evidence and statements and arrive at a decision??? Doesn't matter if he was there or not, he is making a statement which is difficult to prove or disprove. The jury would be entitled to form their opinion on the statement if they wanted. It sounds like it was accepted but i'm entitled to my opinion on whether it is strictly true or not.....

weldoninhio

MarcusP12 wrote: »

Did I say I would discount it? Maybe I should clarify what I mean by not taking it as face value. What I mean is I would challenge that in deliberations if I was in the jury. I would make the point of it not making much sense for the reasons stated. Is that not the point of a jury? To discuss and challenge the evidence and statements and arrive at a decision??? Doesn't matter if he was there or not, he is making a statement which is difficult to prove or disprove. The jury would be entitled to form their opinion on the statement if they wanted. It sounds like it was accepted but i'm entitled to my opinion on whether it is strictly true or not.....

Right, so you are saying that the jury shouldn't just look at the evidence against the accused, they should also be wary of other police officers committing perjury. :rolleyes:

MarcusP12

weldoninhio wrote: »

Right, so you are saying that the jury shouldn't just look at the evidence against the accused, they should also be wary of other police officers committing perjury. :rolleyes:

and what about the statements of one of the others who said they did not see him as a threat? you seem to be discounting that yourself in a way?

So would he be the first person in the history of the judicial process to tell a little white lie which can't really be proved or disproved? Doubt it....its not beyond the realms of possibility that he made up that statement. Again, put yourself in the same position, would you wait to see that your buddy fires first or if you genuinely believed there was a threat, would you not take a chance and get your shot in there first yourself?? Be interested on your take on that one.....

Anyway, I've made the point already that I think its a sad reflection on American society that what we saw on the body cam is acceptable and not considered some form of murder or even manslaughter. A part of me understands how this happened but only because we all know how screwed up American is with guns, not because we believe it is right what happened....

Jawgap

weldoninhio wrote: »

At least one other officer reported aiming a service weapon at Shaver after he unexpectedly reached toward his waistband.

“The male was instructed to crawl towards us with his hands in the air,” that officer said in a supplemental report. “As the male came close to us I saw him abruptly drop his right hand from above his head and reach back to the small of his back. I immediately perceived this as a threat and a movement to reach a handgun.”

.....and yet only one officer fired.

Don Kiddick

Jawgap wrote: »

.....and yet only one officer fired.

Well...if all of them had fired it would have been overkill.

Jawgap

weldoninhio wrote: »

Right, so you are saying that the jury shouldn't just look at the evidence against the accused, they should also be wary of other police officers committing perjury. :rolleyes:

Not so much perjury as they should be careful about witnesses leaving stuff out rather than telling deliberate lies......as in this case when the officers all left out the same key bits of information about Shaver's demeanour prior to him being shot....they only amended their statements once they were challenged with the bodycam evidence......

......anyway I'm sure that was just a coincidence, and nothing to do with the fact that they were left together after the incident and that Brailsford's father, a retired cop from the same department, was on the scene talking to a number of other officers (it's not clear if he interacted with any of the other 5 who were present when his shot fired).

smurgen

They cop involved is at best not mentally fit to be in charge of a weapon.it's a massive liability to have people like this being sent into possible dangerous situations.

MarcusP12

Don Kiddick wrote: »

Well...if all of them had fired it would have been overkill.

But you see this is the point I was making.....more than one had his rifle training on him yet only one fired. Why is that? Was it:

A. The, in my opinion, BS excuse that his buddy had already fired, i.e. why would I want to kill him twice???

or

B. he was giving himself that fraction of a second longer, given the circumstances which he knew he had, to make a proper judgement of the risk and felt that shots fired immediately that the arm moved back was not necessary.

If answer A then it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he had empathy for his workmate and understand the situation and this answer doesn't make it worse for him. If answer B, then he is acknowledging that the killing was unnecessary as there was not an immediate threat to life and then suddenly he's landed his mate in the crapper.

weldoninhio

smurgen wrote: »

They cop involved is at best not mentally fit to be in charge of a weapon.it's a massive liability to have people like this being sent into possible dangerous situations.

You can tell his mental state from watching the video?? They were on a call to an armed person in a hotel room. The possible gunman reached for something at the back of his waist. He was 100% right to shoot. I'd expect 9/10 cops to do the same.

smurgen

weldoninhio wrote: »

You can tell his mental state from watching the video?? They were on a call to an armed person in a hotel room. The possible gunman reached for something at the back of his waist. He was 100% right to shoot. I'd expect 9/10 cops to do the same.

Only 1/6 did sunshine.

end of the road

weldoninhio wrote: »

You can tell his mental state from watching the video?? They were on a call to an armed person in a hotel room. The possible gunman reached for something at the back of his waist. He was 100% right to shoot. I'd expect 9/10 cops to do the same.

the evidence does not corelate to your statement. the evidence states that he was not right to shoot the suspect, and that other cops would likely have not done the same, given that the evidence states the police officers were safe to handcuff the suspect. him reaching for his waste is irrelevant, given the others did not see it as a threat, and would have noticed if there was something such as a gun, hidden in his shirt.
i'm afraid the evidence does not corelate to any of your arguments, therefore they are invalid.

MarcusP12

weldoninhio wrote: »

You can tell his mental state from watching the video?? They were on a call to an armed person in a hotel room. The possible gunman reached for something at the back of his waist. He was 100% right to shoot. I'd expect 9/10 cops to do the same.

And yet only 1 of 6 did on this occasion.....if there was a concealed weapon at the back of his waist, it would have been pretty obvious from where he was positioned, i.e. crawling so low down. Would you not agree? Also, if he was reaching for a gun, there should have been a fraction longer time to establish the risk given the position he would have been required to move his arm back to once he had obtained the non existent weapon in order to take a shot. It kind of reminds me of the training drills these highly trained armed police officers go through that you often see in the movies...you know, the ones where they move through a building and cardboard cut outs flash up that can either be civilian or threat and they have to make a split second decision under stressful conditions during the training. This was a very similar situation.

To say that he was 100% right to shoot is horse$hit in my opinion given the circumstances. The guy was trigger happy.....

valoren

If the Mesa PD were so confident at any lack of wrong doing on the officer's part why didn't they vindicate Brailsford by releasing the bodycam footage immediately. If Shaver was dealt with professionally but was uncooperative during an unknown situation and by appearing to reach for a weapon then yes, he would have had it coming. Move along, nothing to see here.

Or call it as it is.

That the full version of the footage completely incriminates that trigger happy psycho for murdering an innocent man in a hopeless situation for him, that the footage was actively withheld but only released after he got acquitted and the Mesa PD can ultimately weasel out of accountability for this by throwing Brailsford under the bus because he merely violated policy by engraving his issued weapon and had poor performance.

weldoninhio

smurgen wrote: »

Only 1/6 did sunshine.

How many of the other 5 were tasked with covering the suspect, sunshine??

McMurphy

valoren wrote: »

If the Mesa PD were so confident at any lack of wrong doing on the officer's part why didn't they vindicate Brailsford by releasing it immediately. If Shaver was dealt with professionally but was uncooperative during an unknown situation and by appearing to reach for a weapon then yes, he would have had it coming. Move along, nothing to see here.

Or call it as it is.

That the full version of the footage completely incriminates that trigger happy psycho who murdered an innocent man in a hopeless situation , that it was actively withheld but they only released itafter he get's acquitted and the Mesa PD can ultimately weasel out of accountability by throwing Brailsford under the bus because he violated policy by engraving his issued weapon and had poor performance and unfit for service murderer.

It all comes back to Shaver being ordered not to make another mistake.

As I said previously - mistakes are mistakes, they're not a refusal or defiance to comply with an order.

Put your left leg over your right leg. Crawl with your hands in the air?

A mistake was inevitable given the victim had 6 guns pointed at him, was scared shıtless, and had been doing Bacardi shots previous.

BattleCorp

MarcusP12 wrote: »

That only the one guy here fired, is noteworthy.

I think too much is being made of this point. Yes, there were six cops there and maybe not all six felt in fear for their lives. That's pretty much irrelevant though. As long as one of the six felt that the guy on the ground was going for a gun in his waistband, then that's pretty much justification for shooting.

It's an impossible thing to prove one way or another. If the cop says he believed the guy was reaching for a gun, then how do you prove otherwise when it can be seen on video that the guy is reaching back behind him. Perception is the key here. It's very probable that each of the cops there perceived danger at different levels. And it's totally irrelevant that the five cops who didn't shoot didn't perceive a danger level high enough to warrant them shooting the guy. All that counts is that one guy did. And it's what he perceived that counts.

People are making an issue also regarding the competency of the cop with the gun. This might be hard for some people to fathom, but if the cop was not adequately trained with the firearm, then it's not his fault, it's the fault of his employers for not training him properly.

Another point that isn't being discussed enough is how tense the situation there was for all involved. It was a fcuked up scenario where the guy on the ground was sh1tting himself and the cops were scared too. It's only natural for cops to be scared when called out to a report of some loon with a rifle sticking out of a hotel window. When things are tense, people get jittery. It's a normal reaction. And when people get jittery, they tend not to think rationally and logically. We can all say he should have done this, he should have done that, and in normal situations that's what should happen. But when lives are at stake, and people have guns drawn, it's easy for a situation to get out of hand. That can lead to mistakes and in this case, a loss of life. I'm of the opinion that this killing was possibly a mistake but probably not murder.

weldoninhio

MarcusP12 wrote: »

And yet only 1 of 6 did on this occasion.....if there was a concealed weapon at the back of his waist, it would have been pretty obvious from where he was positioned, i.e. crawling so low down. Would you not agree? Also, if he was reaching for a gun, there should have been a fraction longer time to establish the risk given the position he would have been required to move his arm back to once he had obtained the non existent weapon in order to take a shot. It kind of reminds me of the training drills these highly trained armed police officers go through that you often see in the movies...you know, the ones where they move through a building and cardboard cut outs flash up that can either be civilian or threat and they have to make a split second decision under stressful conditions during the training. This was a very similar situation.

To say that he was 100% right to shoot is horse$hit in my opinion given the circumstances. The guy was trigger happy.....

As stated above, how many of the other 5 were tasked with covering the suspect? I'd imagine at least 2 were dealing with the female, 1 at least covering the hotel room door, 1 giving the orders, and one with a gun on the suspect.

As for the bolded bit :rolleyes:


Edit: Another thing that just popped into my head is how narrow the hallways is. How many had the suspect in their line of fire? I don't imagine that there were 6 cops lined up shoulder to shoulder across the hallway with their guns drawn.

McMurphy

BattleCorp wrote: »

I think too much is being made of this point. Yes, there were six cops there and maybe not all six felt in fear for their lives. That's pretty much irrelevant though. As long as one of the six felt that the guy on the ground was going for a gun in his waistband, then that's pretty much justification for shooting.

Seems to me the only justification the cops needed was for the victim to make a mistake.

It's right there in the video.

BattleCorp

valoren wrote: »

That the full version of the footage completely incriminates that trigger happy psycho for murdering an innocent man in a hopeless situation for him, that the footage was actively withheld but only released after he got acquitted and the Mesa PD can ultimately weasel out of accountability for this by throwing Brailsford under the bus because he merely violated policy by engraving his issued weapon and had poor performance.

You do realise that the guy was found not guilty of murder. A jury who sat through six weeks of evidence found him not guilty. Therefore he isn't a murderer.

Breaching policy and writing extremely dumb things on his rifle doesn't make him a murderer either.

The cop can be accused of many things, but you can't accuse him of murdering the guy because he has been cleared of that.

BattleCorp

MarcusP12 wrote: »

It kind of reminds me of the training drills these highly trained armed police officers go through that you often see in the movies...you know, the ones where they move through a building and cardboard cut outs flash up that can either be civilian or threat and they have to make a split second decision under stressful conditions during the training. This was a very similar situation.

.....

Very few police departments have firearms training more than twice a year. So the cop pointing the gun at you isn't going to be as good with it as you hope.

https://www.policeone.com/police-training/articles/3738401-Police-firearms-training-How-often-should-you-be-shooting/

MarcusP12

weldoninhio wrote: »

As stated above, how many of the other 5 were tasked with covering the suspect? I'd imagine at least 2 were dealing with the female, 1 at least covering the hotel room door, 1 giving the orders, and one with a gun on the suspect.

As for the bolded bit :rolleyes:


Edit: Another thing that just popped into my head is how narrow the hallways is. How many had the suspect in their line of fire? I don't imagine that there were 6 cops lined up shoulder to shoulder across the hallway with their guns drawn.

Are you not bored with the patronizing rolly eyed emoji yet? F**k sake.

To address your point....why on earth would 2 cops be required to cover the female who was already in their custody and clearly unarmed and not a threat???

And with regards the bolded bit..i was using the analogy to suggest that they are trained for these kind of split second decisions. Civil or threat, split second decision....reaching back to scratch his ar$e or reaching back for a weapon that they should have a good idea is there or not based on his body position and where he is reaching, split second decision.......in my opinion he made a split second decision and made the wrong one and in my opinion, he had more time to made the right one like it seems his partners, how many were also trained on him, were able to do since they didn't shoot...where was the guy giving the orders pointing do you think????? standing to the side like the cox of a rowing boat, doing SFA apart from shouting orders? Don't think so...fair to assume he was also trained on your man....so that would make 3 I think.....you seem to be suggesting that the one clear and present danger had the least attention based on above??? :rolleyes: right back at you.....

valoren

BattleCorp wrote: »

You do realise that the guy was found not guilty of murder. A jury who sat through six weeks of evidence found him not guilty. Therefore he isn't a murderer.

Breaching policy and writing extremely dumb things on his rifle doesn't make him a murderer either.

The cop can be accused of many things, but you can't accuse him of murdering the guy because he has been cleared of that.

I am well aware of that. I could murder someone, be privately as guilty as sin but publicly cry innocence and if the prosecution happened to make a mistake in their case, assuming my defense lawyer did their job properly I wouldn't be convicted. While by law, I'm not guilty of murder, it wouldn't make me any less of a murderer. Shout out to OJ. A jury needs to be 100% convinced to convict. And when there is a PD circling the wagons it doesn't help them one bit.

My personal take on it, having watched the footage is that it seemed Shavers was going to die no matter what he did. He was murdered by a trigger happy cop who was clearly incapable of handling the situation professionally who for me intentionally drew out and prolonged what was a pretty standard arrest after Shavers complied to get on the ground. He was clearly on a power trip barking ridiculously confusing orders to a scared ****less man and was looking for the slightest innocuous provocation to kill what was a drunk, yet compliant and ultimately innocent man.

The phrase 'got away with murder' seems apt for me.

weldoninhio

valoren wrote: »

I am well aware of that. I could murder someone, be privately as guilty as sin but publicly cry innocence and if the prosecution happened to make a mistake in their case, assuming my defense lawyer did their job properly I wouldn't be convicted. While by law, I'm not guilty of murder, it wouldn't make me any less of a murderer. Shout out to OJ. A jury needs to be 100% convinced to convict. And when there is a PD circling the wagons it doesn't help them one bit.

My personal take on it, having watched the footage is that it seemed Shavers was going to die no matter what he did. He was murdered by a trigger happy cop who was clearly incapable of handling the situation professionally who for me intentionally drew out and prolonged what was a pretty standard arrest after Shavers complied to get on the ground. He was clearly on a power trip barking ridiculously confusing orders to a scared ****less man and was looking for the slightest innocuous provocation to kill what was a drunk, yet compliant and ultimately innocent man.

Your personal take on it is completely nonsense, considering we don't really hear the shooter talk at all during the video. We hear one of his colleagues shouting instructions, not the actual shooter.

Might be as well to get up to speed with the facts of the case before spouting the above.

valoren

weldoninhio wrote: »

Your personal take on it is completely nonsense, considering we don't really hear the shooter talk at all during the video. We hear one of his colleagues shouting instructions, not the actual shooter.

Might be as well to get up to speed with the facts of the case before spouting the above.

That just makes it even worse. Christ the incompetence of Langley. An incompetent, unprofessional, bullying asshole of a cop who draws the sh1te out of a compliant suspect on a power trip loving making Shaver squirm. By drawing it out he allowed for such a fatal mistake to happen. Once he was on the ground he should have been cuffed immediately. Not been subjected to a game of Langley ****ing Says.

"Do not put your hands down for any reason," then he says "Your hands go back in the small of your back or down, we are going to shoot you, do you understand me?" then he tells Shaver "Crawl towards me,"

wtf? Cuff him already you daft ****ing prick.

Get down on the ground! Shavers complies.
Hands above your head! Shavers complies.
Cuff him! Shavers is cuffed.
An investigation takes place and he get's charged with a misdemeanor.

In light of that it seems that the Mesa PD threw Brailsford under the bus to take heat off themselves. Have him profiled as some trigger happy nut and prevent the footage from emerging into the public which shows how incompetence lead to a man getting shot completely unnecessarily.

thejaguar

Am I mistaken in thinking the person "barking the orders" is NOT the person who does the shooting.

I've seen a few posts refer to the shooters mental condition referencing the shouting, orders etc. - which I think is confusing 2 separate people.

In any case, it's a desperately difficult situation which has ended badly. To me, it feels like it's handled poorly but it's the only video I've ever seen of a similar situation, so it's hard to judge it in any relevant context.

valoren

thejaguar wrote: »

Am I mistaken in thinking the person "barking the orders" is NOT the person who does the shooting.

I've seen a few posts refer to the shooters mental condition referencing the shouting, orders etc. - which I think is confusing 2 separate people.

In any case, it's a desperately difficult situation which has ended badly. To me, it feels like it's handled poorly but it's the only video I've ever seen of a similar situation, so it's hard to judge it in any relevant context.

Yes, seems as if the 'commanding' officer was the one barking the orders (who himself was armed) and the video footage was from the actual shooter Brailsfords bodycam. I read it as talker/shooter being from same person which apparently discredits me completely.

weldoninhio

valoren wrote: »

That just makes it even worse. Christ the incompetence of Langley. An incompetent, unprofessional, bullying asshole of a cop who draws the sh1te out of a compliant suspect on a power trip loving making Shaver squirm. By drawing it out he allowed for such a fatal mistake to happen. Once he was on the ground he should have been cuffed immediately. Not been subjected to a game of Langley ****ing Says.

"Do not put your hands down for any reason," then he says "Your hands go back in the small of your back or down, we are going to shoot you, do you understand me?" then he tells Shaver "Crawl towards me,"

wtf? Cuff him already you daft ****ing prick.

Get down on the ground! Shavers complies.
Hands above your head! Shavers complies.
Cuff him! Shavers is cuffed.
A hail of bullets rain out from within the hotel room, which had not been cleared by the officers.

In light of that it seems that the Mesa PD threw Brailsford under the bus to take heat off themselves. Have him profiled as some trigger happy nut and prevent the footage from emerging into the public which shows how incompetence lead to a man getting shot completely unnecessarily.

i've amended your post. Do you see the issue with police officers walking towards an uncleared hotel room.

weldoninhio

valoren wrote: »

Yes, seems as if the 'commanding' officer was the one barking the orders (who himself was armed) and the video footage was from the actual shooter Brailsfords bodycam. I read it as talker/shooter being from same person which apparently discredits me completely.

Its more the fact that you presumed to know the shooter was "clearly on a power trip barking ridiculously confusing orders to a scared ****less man and was looking for the slightest innocuous provocation to kill what was a drunk, yet compliant and ultimately innocent man." when in fact you have no idea of the shooters mindset as we never hear a peep from him, that discredits you.

valoren

weldoninhio wrote: »

Its more the fact that you presumed to know the shooter was "clearly on a power trip barking ridiculously confusing orders to a scared ****less man and was looking for the slightest innocuous provocation to kill what was a drunk, yet compliant and ultimately innocent man." when in fact you have no idea of the shooters mindset as we never hear a peep from him, that discredits you.

I've admitted I mis-interpreted the video as it is confusing. I'm not the first. I can admit I'm wrong there. But those bolded bits are more than applicable to Langley, the commanding officers conduct in the video.

clearly on a power trip barking ridiculously confusing orders to a scared ****less man.

"Crawl towards me,"

Shavers does so but his pants starts falling down, he reaches back and for Brailsford it looks like he's reaching and he shoots not once but 5 times.

weldoninhio

valoren wrote: »

I've admitted I mis-interpreted the video as it is confusing. I'm not the first. I can admit I'm wrong there. But those bolded bits are more than applicable to Langley, the commanding officers conduct in the video.

clearly on a power trip barking ridiculously confusing orders to a scared ****less man.

"Crawl towards me,"

Shavers does so but his pants starts falling down, he reaches back and for Brailsford it looks like he's reaching and he shoots not once but 5 times.

Cops are trained to shoot to kill. He took 5 shots within 1-2 seconds. Hardly overkill. I've had the cops pull guns on me twice in the states. Once by the LAPD and once by Tahoe PD. I was extremely drunk in Tahoe. I was young, had no experience with US cops, but even I knew to follow exactly what they told me to do. My trousers and boxers could have been falling down and I still wouldn't have grabbed for my waist.

MarcusP12

BattleCorp wrote: »

MarcusP12 wrote: »

It kind of reminds me of the training drills these highly trained armed police officers go through that you often see in the movies...you know, the ones where they move through a building and cardboard cut outs flash up that can either be civilian or threat and they have to make a split second decision under stressful conditions during the training. This was a very similar situation.

.....

Very few police departments have firearms training more than twice a year. So the cop pointing the gun at you isn't going to be as good with it as you hope.

https://www.policeone.com/police-training/articles/3738401-Police-firearms-training-How-often-should-you-be-shooting/

That's a pretty scary concept to be fair.....

Wossack

weldoninhio wrote: »

Cops are trained to shoot to kill. He took 5 shots within 1-2 seconds. Hardly overkill. I've had the cops pull guns on me twice in the states. Once by the LAPD and once by Tahoe PD. I was extremely drunk in Tahoe. I was young, had no experience with US cops, but even I knew to follow exactly what they told me to do. My trousers and boxers could have been falling down and I still wouldn't have grabbed for my waist.

survival bias

weldoninhio

Wossack wrote: »

survival bias

Survival? I didn't survive anything. I just wasn't an idiot. Shaver should be nominated for the Darwin Awards.

timmy880

It sort of looks like he is reaching for his waist but why are all cops intent on shooting to kill in the US? You can shoot a guy in the arm or the leg. That's still severe but this officer loaded 5 bullets into a guy laying on the floor. It's a slaughter.

wakka12

BattleCorp wrote: »

You do realise that the guy was found not guilty of murder. A jury who sat through six weeks of evidence found him not guilty. Therefore he isn't a murderer.

Breaching policy and writing extremely dumb things on his rifle doesn't make him a murderer either.

The cop can be accused of many things, but you can't accuse him of murdering the guy because he has been cleared of that.

OJ isn't a murderer either? Lots of things , from corruption to good lawyers on their side to crucial pieces of evidence being inadmissible can mean somebody doesn't get sentenced for murder even if they did

We saw the video , we saw exactly what happened so unlike in other cases I don't see how you can say we are being armchair detectives.
Also given the amount of these occurrences and this being yet another case of police clearly abusing their power and ending a persons life and still being found innocent, doesn't that make you even a little suspicious of the verdict?

weldoninhio

timmy880 wrote: »

It sort of looks like he is reaching for his waist but why are all cops intent on shooting to kill in the US? You can shoot a guy in the arm or the leg. That's still severe but this officer loaded 5 bullets into a guy laying on the floor. It's a slaughter.

Because its not the movies. Afaik all armed cops/anyone training in the use of firearms are trained to hit the centre mass as it is the biggest target and contains most of the vital organs. Even the ERU in Ireland, although obviously shootings in Ireland are a lot less common.