Killing of Daniel Shaver.

namloc1980

gctest50 wrote: »

But Shaver got past all that stage and was crawling towards them

Then he stopped crawling and reached for his waist

He put his hands behind his back for several seconds moments before and they didn't shoot. Seems to me they were incompetent buffoons. And the one shouting orders and telling him to keep his hands in the air/crawl at the same time was making it up as he went along. There was testimony at the trial that the crawl instruction was highly unusual in such a scenario. The normal protocol is to get the suspect to stand up and walk backwards with hands up or with the t-shirt up over the head. As I said, a bunch of incompetent hot heads.

smurgen

Pithythefool wrote: »

it would be a slaughter, and that's not a sleight against the gardai. They are just different measures for different societies.

What about an ARU Garda? It's the american gun lobby that have taken the country to the point were the stakes are too high for everyone and the psychology of the hot heads are showing with disasterous consequences.

Autochange

smurgen wrote: »

What about an ARU Garda? It's the american gun lobby that have taken the country to the point were the stakes are too high for everyone and the psychology of the hot heads are showing with disasterous consequences.

Well they would be armed whereas a normal Garda isn't. That's the point

weldoninhio

backspin. wrote: »

That is the only reason he didn't get done for murder. But the cop was trigger happy. He looked like he didn't give a damn about having to kill him, it seemed he even relished the prospect. Scumbag of a cop and totally unsuited to the job.

How can you tell that about the shooter from the video??

weldoninhio

KKkitty wrote: »

So you were on your own I take it and drunk but still complied with orders. Good on you but you're not Daniel Shaver are you! What you faced was most likely very different from what Daniel went through before he died. They could have tased him, treated him the same as the female but no they didn't because he was male. Women can't have concealed weapons but hey men can. This whole situation could have been dealt with way better but no there was some jumped up armed officer with a gun that said "you're fcuked" on it. His ego is obviously bigger than his head.

The female never reached back into her waistband. If she did, she’d be dead.

Wailin

The guy is dead weldininhio. Looking at the length you're going through in this thread to justify it, it sounds like your very pleased. You might as well end it here and now as you've nothing more to prove.

I'm just glad our cops are not armed and your not one of them.

Jawgap

weldoninhio wrote: »

The female never reached back into her waistband. If she did, she’d be dead.

the interesting thing is she was not perceived as the threat!!!

Langley made it clear in his evidence that he wanted to get the female out first to prevent a hostage situation - the presumption being that if a gun was being brandished in the room, and there was a male and female present then it must be the male who was the threat!!

Likewise, as she came out with Shaver, Brailsford, as the designated lethal shooter* was told to cover Shaver, along with the other armed officers, while they only put the designated non-lethal shooter (Daone) on the girl! Are women incapable of carrying a firearm and/or taking hostages?

The whole point is that if the cops wanted to end this as quickly and easily as possible there was ample opportunity, especially when Shaver was prone, and even after if they just stuck to established procedure after he'd be instructed to go face down, it would have a totally different outcome.

Personally, I think the cops had watched one too many episodes of SWAT or played one too many games of COD......as evidenced by their advance to the room - like, wtf, were patrol officers doing trying to storm a confined space like a hotel room!! I believe the more usual approach would have been cordon and contain until the specialists arrive......sure they didn't even have a ram or a shotgun to do the door!

Frankly, the fact you continue to defend and justify the police behaviour in this incident says quite a lot........none of it charitable.


*and lets not get into the culpability of a police force that puts someone with only 2 years experience, unqualified with a personal weapon at the front of an incident like this with an implied duty to apply lethal force.

weldoninhio

Wailin wrote: »

The guy is dead weldininhio. Looking at the length you're going through in this thread to justify it, it sounds like your very pleased. You might as well end it here and now as you've nothing more to prove.

I'm just glad our cops are not armed and your not one of them.

Jawgap wrote: »

the interesting thing is she was not perceived as the threat!!!

Langley made it clear in his evidence that he wanted to get the female out first to prevent a hostage situation - the presumption being that if a gun was being brandished in the room, and there was a male and female present then it must be the male who was the threat!!

Likewise, as she came out with Shaver, Brailsford, as the designated lethal shooter* was told to cover Shaver, along with the other armed officers, while they only put the designated non-lethal shooter (Daone) on the girl! Are women incapable of carrying a firearm and/or taking hostages?

The whole point is that if the cops wanted to end this as quickly and easily as possible there was ample opportunity, especially when Shaver was prone, and even after if they just stuck to established procedure after he'd be instructed to go face down, it would have a totally different outcome.

Personally, I think the cops had watched one too many episodes of SWAT or played one too many games of COD......as evidenced by their advance to the room - like, wtf, were patrol officers doing trying to storm a confined space like a hotel room!! I believe the more usual approach would have been cordon and contain until the specialists arrive......sure they didn't even have a ram or a shotgun to do the door!

Frankly, the fact you continue to defend and justify the police behaviour in this incident says quite a lot........none of it charitable.


*and lets not get into the culpability of a police force that puts someone with only 2 years experience, unqualified with a personal weapon at the front of an incident like this with an implied duty to apply lethal force.

1. Sounds like i'm pleased how? I didn't know the guy. I'm sticking up for a cop who is getting a character assassination from armchair ballistics and SWAT experts. Also, i'll continue to post for as long as I like. You don't like a post report it.

2. They tried to storm nothing. More lies and mental gymnastics.

3. Brailsford was qualified to use an AR-15. Another lie thats gotten legs, even though another poster, GCTest i believe, has quoted this a few posts back.

If you need to lie to twist the story to suit your narrative, then i'm afraid you don't have much credibility.

valoren

Why wasn't the body cam footage made available sooner? If there was nothing untoward about the conduct of the officers here then why not vindicate them completely and quite easily by making that footage available considering nothing was done wrong or incompetently?

weldoninhio

valoren wrote: »

Why wasn't the body cam footage made available? If there was nothing untoward about the conduct of the officers here then why not vindicate them completely and quite easily by making that footage available considering nothing was done wrong or incompetently?

It is available. The link to it is in the very first post.

valoren

weldoninhio wrote: »

It is available. The link to it is in the very first post.

Why wasn't it made available shortly after the incident in January 2016? Why almost 2 years later was it released is my question. Wouldn't it vindicate the competence and professionalism of the Mesa officers handling of the situation at the earliest opportunity and wouldn't it be in the interests of Mesa PD to deflect from any potential accusations of incompetence and wrong doing, particularly considering Shaver, who turned out to be completely innocent, was shot five times? No matter the legal implications or the due process in making it available, if they were certain of no wrong doing they would have actively encouraged it's release.

flaneur

It's stuff like this that puts me off holidaying in the USA.
I know I've had fairly good experiences of vacations over there in the past, but I'm always very concerned about the risk of shootings or some really aggressive police officer. Things seem to be getting more extreme every year.

Both myself and quite a few other people I know have also had fairly unpleasant experiences at airports. One of my relatives is deaf and she was yelled at and shoved by the TSA because she didn't understand what was being said when she was grunted at to take another line.

It's a interesting place but, I'm increasingly just finding all of this stuff very off putting.

weldoninhio

valoren wrote: »

Why wasn't it made available shortly after the incident in January 2016? Why almost 2 years later was it released is my question. Wouldn't it vindicate the competence and professionalism of the Mesa officers handling of the situation?

I'd imagine its because the public reaction would have influenced jury members. Everyone is entitled to due process and not trial by media/the court of public opinion.

MarcusP12

weldoninhio wrote: »

1. Sounds like i'm pleased how? I didn't know the guy. I'm sticking up for a cop who is getting a character assassination from armchair ballistics and SWAT experts. Also, i'll continue to post for as long as I like. You don't like a post report it.

2. They tried to storm nothing. More lies and mental gymnastics.

3. Brailsford was qualified to use an AR-15. Another lie thats gotten legs, even though another poster, GCTest i believe, has quoted this a few posts back.

If you need to lie to twist the story to suit your narrative, then i'm afraid you don't have much credibility.

Just to pick up on your point above. What makes you think this guy needs your unwaivering support? I'm sure he has gotten that from his family, friends and some colleagues? I'm being slightly tongue and cheek of course but I suppose what is causing most alarm with people reading your posts is that you seem to be lacking in any kind of empathy towards the victim and somehow think the nature of the killing was justified. I'm possibly paraphrasing so don't dismiss what i'm saying by the usual "I never said this or that".

As I was reading your posts I was thinking that you were American and that culturally this kind of thing was part of American life. But I think you said you were irish which makes your take on the situation a bit, how shall we say, "out of synch". You are of course perfectly entitled to your opinion on the matter but its the coldness of the your judgement that people are picking up on I think. But you're not the only one.

As I've said before, I think its possible to understand how the situation played out without accepting or justifying it. There are plenty of polar opposite opinions on here. I'm somewhere right of centre towards the wrongful killing side, i.e. don't think it was cold murder but I think the killing was unjustified, whatever less charge that would be.

Having seen it again recently, I also wouldn't rule out the slim possibility that this guy had a death wish.

Whatever way you look at it, it is a very stark reflection on American society that this kind of incident occurred in the manner it did and also that he was acquitted by a jury of his peers.

A couple of questions to the floor....maybe I missed it in the reports, but when the gun was spotted from the pool area in the room, was the person holding it, holding in a threatening manner?i.e. aiming it in jest or something? Reason I ask is that I think someone posted that in that state it is legal to openly carry a registered fire arm. So why would someone call the cops if they saw some random guy holding a rifle in a private hotel room? And also, why the heavy handed approach by the cops unless they were aiming at people in jest?? A reminder that this was pre-LV......

weldoninhio

MarcusP12 wrote: »

Just to pick up on your point above. What makes you think this guy needs your unwaivering support? I'm sure he has gotten that from his family, friends and some colleagues? I'm being slightly tongue and cheek of course but I suppose what is causing most alarm with people reading your posts is that you seem to be lacking in any kind of empathy towards the victim and somehow think the nature of the killing was justified. I'm possibly paraphrasing so don't dismiss what i'm saying by the usual "I never said this or that".

As I was reading your posts I was thinking that you were American and that culturally this kind of thing was part of American life. But I think you said you were irish which makes your take on the situation a bit, how shall we say, "out of synch". You are of course perfectly entitled to your opinion on the matter but its the coldness of the your judgement that people are picking up on I think. But you're not the only one.

As I've said before, I think its possible to understand how the situation played out without accepting or justifying it. There are plenty of polar opposite opinions on here. I'm somewhere right of centre towards the wrongful killing side, i.e. don't think it was cold murder but I think the killing was unjustified, whatever less charge that would be.

Having seen it again recently, I also wouldn't rule out the slim possibility that this guy had a death wish.

Whatever way you look at it, it is a very stark reflection on American society that this kind of incident occurred in the manner it did and also that he was acquitted by a jury of his peers.

A couple of questions to the floor....maybe I missed it in the reports, but when the gun was spotted from the pool area in the room, was the person holding it, holding in a threatening manner?i.e. aiming it in jest or something? Reason I ask is that I think someone posted that in that state it is legal to openly carry a registered fire arm. So why would someone call the cops if they saw some random guy holding a rifle in a private hotel room? And also, why the heavy handed approach by the cops unless they were aiming at people in jest?? A reminder that this was pre-LV......

Re the first few paragraphs, I think the blame lies squarely on Shaver. There was zero reason to reach back towards his waist. He'd dropped his hands before and was explicitly warned what would happen if he went for something. There was zero reason to reach back there. The cop just did his job.

Regarding the last paragraph, below is what the 911 caller said:

In the 911 calls, a hotel employee told dispatchers “we’ve got some scared people,” but no one was injured.

“A couple of the guests – I’m an employee – they’ve come to me and they’ve told me that somebody is pointing a rifle outside of one of the windows in our building,” the hotel staffer said.

The staffer then tells police they believe it is room 502, where Shaver was staying.

The call is available on Youtube I think.

Jawgap

weldoninhio wrote: »

1. Sounds like i'm pleased how? I didn't know the guy. I'm sticking up for a cop who is getting a character assassination from armchair ballistics and SWAT experts. Also, i'll continue to post for as long as I like. You don't like a post report it.

2. They tried to storm nothing. More lies and mental gymnastics.

Oh really? What was the point in advancing to the room and their incompetent attempts to open the door, then? Maybe they were just going in to collect the room service tray :rolleyes:

As was pointed out in the case, despite the fact they were toting AR-15s, they didn't clear adjoining rooms or rooms above - maybe they thought any bullet would just not go through walls and doors?

EDIT: I started my contribution to this thread by citing the evidence from the investigating detective......I'm happy to repeat the conclusion

that there was nothing, based on the evidence, that should have stopped the officers on the scene from handcuffing Shaver while he was on the floor.

.......it is unclear from his statement and testimony if he owns an armchair, so you may well be right.

weldoninhio wrote: »

3. Brailsford was qualified to use an AR-15. Another lie thats gotten legs, even though another poster, GCTest i believe, has quoted this a few posts back.

Again really?? Then Brailsofrd needs to correct the statement he gave to Sipe:rolleyes:

weldoninhio wrote: »

If you need to lie to twist the story to suit your narrative, then i'm afraid you don't have much credibility.

Well, it seems I'm the only one quoting from sources - for example:-

The cops never interviewed the witness who claims to have seen Shaver with the rifle before going in

Langley, in complete violation of MCPD policies, ordered Brailsford away from the scene and ordered him to switch off his bodycam after the shooting......

.....subsequently sent Daone to talk to him (ordering Daone to turn off his bodycam before talking to Brailsford) - so, rather conveniently, none of the post-incident discussions were recorded......

......Brailsford, again in violation of MCPD policies, was allowed to talk to his father (and retired MCPD Internal Affairs Cop) before being interviewed by Sipe.......

.....the after incident reports filed by the other officers (Langley, Doane, Elmore, Cochran and Gomez) all omitted key information and included "shared references" to the apparent threat presented.

Not exactly the actions of a group confident about the correctness of their actions........but yes, I'm the one twisting the story :rolleyes:

Btw......it seems Brailsford had some form when it came to excessive force:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HEZm5em3dY

MarcusP12

weldoninhio wrote: »

Re the first few paragraphs, I think the blame lies squarely on Shaver. There was zero reason to reach back towards his waist. He'd dropped his hands before and was explicitly warned what would happen if he went for something. There was zero reason to reach back there. The cop just did his job.

Regarding the last paragraph, below is what the 911 caller said:

In the 911 calls, a hotel employee told dispatchers “we’ve got some scared people,” but no one was injured.

“A couple of the guests – I’m an employee – they’ve come to me and they’ve told me that somebody is pointing a rifle outside of one of the windows in our building,” the hotel staffer said.

The staffer then tells police they believe it is room 502, where Shaver was staying.

The call is available on Youtube I think.

Ok, thanks, that clears up the context.....I understand what you are saying but its how you are phrasing it that doesn't come across particularly well if you don't mind me saying. I think he was stupid but I don't think he deserved to die because of it. But I can understand how this happened in such a gun obsessed culture like 'Murica. As I've mentioned many times, it was such a deliberate stupid move, that part of me thinks he wanted to get taken out......but we'll never know......really f**ked up situation which makes me glad to be Irish....

Jawgap

MarcusP12 wrote: »

Ok, thanks, that clears up the context.....I understand what you are saying but its how you are phrasing it that doesn't come across particularly well if you don't mind me saying. I think he was stupid but I don't think he deserved to die because of it. But I can understand how this happened in such a gun obsessed culture like 'Murica. As I've mentioned many times, it was such a deliberate stupid move, that part of me thinks he wanted to get taken out......but we'll never know......really f**ked up situation which makes me glad to be Irish....

One of the criticisms levelled at Langley is that he responded to the call as if it was an active shooter situation even though no shots had been fired......and he failed to talk to the witness who saw the rifle being brandished.....or to the staff member who went up to the room just before the cops arrived (after the report had been phoned in) and said that when she went in to the room (the door was ajar) - it looked as if the rifle was being sold......plus the report phoned in suggested a Hispanic male was brandishing the rifle - can't say Shaver looks very Hispanic to me.

MarcusP12

Jawgap wrote: »

One of the criticisms levelled at Langley is that he responded to the call as if it was an active shooter situation even though no shots had been fired......and he failed to talk to the witness who saw the rifle being brandished.....or to the staff member who went up to the room just before the cops arrived (after the report had been phoned in) and said that when she went in to the room (the door was ajar) - it looked as if the rifle was being sold......plus the report phoned in suggested a Hispanic male was brandishing the rifle - can't say Shaver looks very Hispanic to me.

i assume the above is accurate and as such reinforces the belief that this was heavy handed by the cops involved who defaulted to a potential gun fight even though there was limited information to suggest this was a mass shooting in the making.....again, point to a f**ked up society....

redarmyblues

Reading some of the posts here informs us of what inadequates fantasize about during their security guard shifts at Mothercare . Thank God they don't give them guns or else there would be dead babies all over the place as a consequence of the babies failure to comply with shouted instructions.

Baby: Mwahhh.
Walter Mitty: You baby, stop effing crying, get into a lotus pose and wriggle over here on your belly.
Baby is too young to crawl and is upset by the shouting.
Baby: Mwwwwwwaaahhhhhhhh, Mwwwwwwaaahhhhhhhh.
Watler Mitty: Tittibhasana pose, crawl away from me and stop crying or will blow your effing baldy head off.
Baby: Mwwwwwwaaahhhhhhhh, Mwwwwwwaaahhhhhhhh.Mwwwwwwaaahhhhhhhh, Mwwwwwwaaahhhhhhhh.
BANG, BANG, BANG.
Walter Mitty: She had it coming.

GreeBo

From listening to it again, I think the officer "in charge" of the situation caused the problem.

He escalated the tension rather than de-escalated it, and frankly, almost ordered Brailsford to shoot Shaver.
"If you make another mistake we are going to shoot you"

For me thats telling Brailsford to shoot him if he makes a mistake, irrespective of any perceived danger.

Also, telling someone a list of things to do and then inserting one that they should not do in the middle, is ridiculous.
At the best of times its confusing, in this situation with a drunk, terrified man its deadly.

end of the road

weldoninhio wrote: »

I'd imagine its because the public reaction would have influenced jury members. Everyone is entitled to due process and not trial by media/the court of public opinion.

the problem for you is again, the evidence does not back your statements up. it says the opposite.
the cop didn't just do his job, and shaver wasn't ultimately to blame, otherwise he would still be serving and he wouldn't have gone to trial.

Pronto63

MarcusP12 wrote: »

.......was the person holding it, holding in a threatening manner?i.e. aiming it in jest or something? .......
.

Are you for real?

I've no police experience but do have almost 39 years of firearms training and one of the first golden rules you learn is that you NEVER point a firearm, even an unloaded one, at someone unless you intend to shoot them.

The rawest of recruits have this drilled into them.

Pointing a weapon is a serious business and should be taken seriously.


On another point some posters have asked why the cops didn't get him to walk backwards with his shirt over his head - was he sober enough to do this?
Just asking?

Very sad for all concerned including the cops!

Wailin

Pronto63 wrote: »

Very sad for all concerned including the cops!

Fcuk the cops. They killed a father of two young girls due to sheer incompetence and an inability to handle a situation correctly and with reason.

Sand

I'd normally give the benefit of the doubt to the cop, but this seems indefensible. Shaver is clearly confused/drunk/frightened. He several times makes very poor judgements including when he put both hands behind his back for several seconds. When I saw that I was certain this was when he was going to be shot.

Two things strike me: One, the cops did not shoot him when he did that. They didn't observe a lethal threat at that time despite both of his hands being behind him and he being on his knees, upright, facing them. Other than the fear of the police officer, why did the perception of threat suddenly spike when only one hand was briefly out of sight, he was head down on his knees? That police officer panicked and murdered him, nothing more.

Two, they had him down, prone, and compliant. They then deliberately escalated things again by issuing a series of contradictory instructions (hands up! crawl towards me!) to a drunken, confused, crying man. They should have secured him when he was down if they were that frightened. People were saying they didn't want to advance on the hotel room and get held up, but they did exactly that and took 60 fricking seconds standing outside the hotel room, shouting and struggling to open the door, at any time at risk of being shot through the door. No fear of a hidden rifleman then.

This is a poorly trained, poorly led police force murdering a guy through their own incompetence.

weldoninhio

Wailin wrote: »

Fcuk the cops. They killed a father of two young girls due to sheer incompetence and an inability to handle a situation correctly and with reason.

A judge and jury disagree with you.

MarcusP12

Pronto63 wrote: »

MarcusP12 wrote: »

.......was the person holding it, holding in a threatening manner?i.e. aiming it in jest or something? .......
.

Are you for real?

I've no police experience but do have almost 39 years of firearms training and one of the first golden rules you learn is that you NEVER point a firearm, even an unloaded one, at someone unless you intend to shoot them.

The rawest of recruits have this drilled into them.

Pointing a weapon is a serious business and should be taken seriously.


On another point some posters have asked why the cops didn't get him to walk backwards with his shirt over his head - was he sober enough to do this?
Just asking?

Very sad for all concerned including the cops!

Yes I am for real, thank you for asking!

I have no idea what point you are trying to make by referencing my quote out of context. How do you know the guy witnessed holding the gun had any training at all? Maybe he was a complete moron who didn't understand the consequences of how he was behaving with the gun. Read my post again, I was asking questions, challenging people's thoughts. You know trying to make sense out of the situation. And what on earth do recruits have to do with the point I was making? I think you completely misinterpreted my overall post......I guess there's some things that 39 years experience of fire arms can't teach you......

Wailin

weldoninhio wrote: »

A judge and jury disagree with you.

Oh well that's a surprise.

Jamiekelly

weldoninhio wrote: »

A judge and jury disagree with you.

A jury disagrees, the judge didn't have a say it wasn't a bench trial :rolleyes: