Killing of Daniel Shaver.

mynamejeff

end of the road wrote: »

and? i don't think anyone disputed this claim? however there are procedures for officers to follow when dealing with such incidents, and it sounds like they weren't followed by the offending officer.



not tough luck as he was not told to not reach for his waste, and it seems being told to crawl forward is not a recognised technique by the police over there.



it's more then enough to get the job done.



you can understand it because you condone the poor handling of it. you have thanked enough posts making excuses for the poor handling of it so it's the only conclusion i can come to.
there are only 2 reasons why he was acquited.
1. the burdin of proof wasn't met.
2. he was a cop, and cops are more likely to not be convicted in america of unjustified shootings of suspects. justified shootings rarely ever make it to trial.

again and as per usual you haven't a clue what your talking about are just sprouting twaddle same as always

the_syco

sugarman wrote: »

Had half a reason to suspect he could have been pulling a gun, but were ****ing FIVE shots necessary?

It's a controlled burst at centre mass. You don't shoot to injure; you shoot to kill.

LadyMacBeth_ wrote: »

If Daniel had the potential to shoot other unarmed civilians in the hallway I might be more willing to understand it but he didn't, well unless he was going to shoot his girlfriend.

Daniels girlfriend wasn't there.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Suspect was the author of his own demise. Acting the maggot with a scoped rifle on the balcony of a hotel, then not following the officers instructions. It wasn’t the first time he’d dropped his hands or failed to follow simple instructions.

Have read that Nuñez (who left just before the police came) was the one who held the gun out the window.

Unfortunately the cops didn't know this at the time.

riffmongous wrote: »

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

The policeman with the taser didn't taser him, because he wasn't seen as a threat.

=-=

The information was that someone was spotted aiming a scoped rifle out the window of an apartment block at a highway.

As the hall is a tight space, there'd be no room to flank someone.

IMO, I view it as a case of "sh|t happens". You don't reach behind you when there are guns pointed at you. IMO the cop in command did a bad job at getting the drunken suspect to follow orders, and should've had the group move forward to apprehend the suspect at an earlier stage.

Jawgap

the_syco wrote: »

It's a controlled burst at centre mass. You don't shoot to injure; you shoot to kill.


Daniels girlfriend wasn't there.


Have read that Nuñez (who left just before the police came) was the one who held the gun out the window.

Unfortunately the cops didn't know this at the time.


The policeman with the taser didn't taser him, because he wasn't seen as a threat.

=-=

The information was that someone was spotted aiming a scoped rifle out the window of an apartment block at a highway.

As the hall is a tight space, there'd be no room to flank someone.

IMO, I view it as a case of "sh|t happens". You don't reach behind you when there are guns pointed at you. IMO the cop in command did a bad job at getting the drunken suspect to follow orders, and should've had the group move forward to apprehend the suspect at an earlier stage.

Nothing controlled about it......the autopsy showed that Shaver was hit by 5 shots.....two in the chest, one grazed his cheek, one in the back of the head, one in the back......if anything it confirms how inexperienced the officer was and he certainly had no right bringing a non-service issue weapon to such a scene, never mind bring out on point as the lethal shooter.

.......and whatever about the reaching movement (and the point that only 1 of 6 officers present perceived it as threatening), the fact remains that once out of the room the cops handled his surrender and detention in as inept a fashion as was possible.

Bob Harris

I can understand the officers being on high alert after getting the call but once they have the guy on his knees and essentially being made to play simple simon by the cop why don't they just approach him and cable tie/cuff his hands. The situation from being completely under control was let get woefully out of hand by an over excited and trigger happy cop on a power trip.

B.A._Baracus

Not that it's new but the lesson learned here is do not mess around when US police have guns pointed at you.

J. Marston

Apparently, the cop who pulled the trigger and the one barking the orders are different. The cop who actually shot him was the one on trial while the one with the orders is Sgt. Charles Langley, who retired 4 months after the incident.

Jawgap

J. Marston wrote: »

Apparently, the cop who pulled the trigger and the one barking the orders are different. The cop who actually shot him was the one on trial while the one with the orders is Sgt. Charles Langley, who retired 4 months after the incident.

Yes.

There were 6 officers present, 3 were armed with AR-15s

the_syco

J. Marston wrote: »

Apparently, the cop who pulled the trigger and the one barking the orders are different. The cop who actually shot him was the one on trial while the one with the orders is Sgt. Charles Langley, who retired 4 months after the incident.

I'm thinking that he was told to leave, because if he was sacked, it would leave him, and perhaps the unit, open to further lawsuits?

Blazer

Also reason they were told to crawl forward was that as the time a third suspect was potentially in the room with a gun and there was no way the cops was going to approach and try and handcuff the suspects in front of an open door.
Most of these clips we see are always the suspects ignoring police instructions and reaching for their wallet/is etc when already been warned repeatedly not to do so. If you ignore these instructions from armed cops you only have yourself to blame if you get shot.

McMurphy

Why didn't the cop ask him to juggle blindfolded while reciting the alphabet backwards in Swahili at the same time?

Might have been easier than the instructions he had been given, considering the man had (presumably) drink on him, and was scared shıtless.

Don Kiddick

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Why didn't the cop ask him to juggle blindfolded while reciting the alphabet backwards in Swahili at the same time?

Might have been easier than the instructions he had been given, considering the man had (presumably) drink on him, and was scared shıtless.

So? He's the moron who pointed a gun out the window at people...you reap what you sow in murica

D3V!L

It was clear that he reached behind himself. End of discussion.

Flippyfloppy

The guy was clearly drunk and being told to keep his legs crossed while kneeling and crawling with his arms up. He basically got shot to death for failing a sobriety test.

Ridiculous loss of life for showing someone the scope on an animal control pellet gun. Poor guy RIP I'd say he was panicking to bits thinking of his kids.

Blazer

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

He basically got shot to death for failing a sobriety test.

He got shot because he was a moron who brought a gun into a hotel and let his mate point it out the window.
Also because he didn’t follow instructions.
It’s one less idiot on the streets. There are other videos where the cops acted disgracefully and basically murdered people but this isnt one of those times.

McMurphy

Don Kiddick wrote: »

So? He's the moron who pointed a gun out the window at people...you reap what you sow in murica

They've stupid gun laws - No doubt.

But I'm simply pointing out that 6 armed officers had the lad covered, he was on his front and completely subdued.

Giving someone with a bellyful of gargle in them complex and detailed coordination commands (put your left leg over your right knee while doing this that and the other) seems a bit OTT.

Fair enough it was initially thought he was armed and dangerous, but I don't see what would have been so terribly difficult for the cops to do what they were doing (surrounded him with guns) but instead of the Simon says commands (remember the lads been drinking) telling him to get himself on the ground, arms and legs kept still while someone cuffs or cable ties him.

Fair enough there's gun nuts all over Amercia.

A cop having "you're fcuked" written on his gun should be lumped in among them though.

Jawgap

Don Kiddick wrote: »

So? He's the moron who pointed a gun out the window at people...you reap what you sow in murica

Except he didn't.

To repeat the old trope - you are entitled to your opinion, but not the facts.

And the facts in this case are that the gun wasn't pointed out the window and wasn't pointed at anyone. People saw the gun thruogh the window (and the fixed screen in front of it) and, reasonably enough, called it in.

Rumple Stillson

Blazer wrote: »

He got shot because he was a moron who brought a gun into a hotel and let his mate point it out the window.
Also because he didn’t follow instructions.
It’s one less idiot on the streets. There are other videos where the cops acted disgracefully and basically murdered people but this isnt one of those times.

It clearly is. I suggest you are devoid of any basic common sense, empathy and humanity.

splinter65

Rumple Stillson wrote: »

It clearly is. I suggest you are devoid of any basic common sense, empathy and humanity.

A jury heard and saw all the evidence which took 6 weeks to plough through.
Without seeing anything apart from a five minute clip, you are as good as saying all 12 of them are devoid of basic common sense empathy or humanity.
Do you not think that’s a bit ridiculous ?

Rumple Stillson

splinter65 wrote: »

A jury heard and saw all the evidence which took 6 weeks to plough through.
Without seeing anything apart from a five minute clip, you are as good as saying all 12 of them are devoid of basic common sense empathy or humanity.
Do you not think that’s a bit ridiculous ?

I was referencing Blazer and his post which more or less said the guy deserved to be executed because he was foolish and drunk.

Blazer

Rumple Stillson wrote: »

It clearly is. I suggest you are devoid of any basic common sense, empathy and humanity.

I just prefer to keep it for more deserving people.
It’s a limited supply in this day and age.
Without being there none of us can judge.
As stated above a jury reviewed the case for 6 weeks so obvious they know more than anyone on this thread

Blazer

Rumple Stillson wrote: »

I was referencing Blazer and his post which more or less said the guy deserved to be executed because he was foolish and drunk.

I didn’t say he deserved it. I said when an armed cop tells you what to do you better do it exactly as he says otherwise you can’t blame the cop for reacting as he did.
Remember cops have wives and kids too and at the end of the day they just want to go home to them.

Rumple Stillson

Blazer wrote: »

I just prefer to keep it for more deserving people.
It’s a limited supply in this day and age.
Without being there none of us can judge.
As stated above a jury reviewed the case for 6 weeks so obvious they know more than anyone on this thread

I've seen incidents where I felt the police officer was justified in using his weapon, given the context of the situation. I don't think this even approached that.

He was acquitted of murder, which I think is probably the right verdict. I think he should have been charged with involuntary manslaughter. But hey, I'm not a solicitor so I can't back that up with any degree of credibility.

What I am is a human being and from watching the video, reading the context of the situation and just applying some basic humanity, I think the killing was totally unjustified and unnecessary. I'm guessing most people here see it that way.

Blazer

Rumple Stillson wrote: »

I've seen incidents where I felt the police officer was justified in using his weapon, given the context of the situation. I don't think this even approached that.

He was acquitted of murder, which I think is probably the right verdict. I think he should have been charged with involuntary manslaughter. But hey, I'm not a solicitor so I can't back that up with any degree of credibility.

What I am is a human being and from watching the video, reading the context of the situation and just applying some basic humanity, I think the killing was totally unjustified and unnecessary. I'm guessing most people here see it that way.

Its very easy to sit at your pc and say that without experiencing having to go out on a daily beat and wonder what nutcase you'll meet today and whether they'll pull a gun on you.
Barring some people on here who might be soldiers and go abroad on assignment 99.9% of us keyboard warriors on here have no clue about the dangers they face.

Rumple Stillson

Blazer wrote: »

Its very easy to sit at your pc and say that without experiencing having to go out on a daily beat and wonder what nutcase you'll meet today and whether they'll pull a gun on you.
Barring some people on here who might be soldiers and go abroad on assignment 99.9% of us keyboard warriors on here have no clue about the dangers they face.

These people are trained to deal with situations exactly like this. They handled it with total incompetence. The only person whose life was in danger at any point during this exchange was Daniel Shaver's. None of the other officers felt their life was under threat, hence they didn't open fire.

Bob Harris

Blazer wrote: »

Its very easy to sit at your pc and say that without experiencing having to go out on a daily beat and wonder what nutcase you'll meet today and whether they'll pull a gun on you.
Barring some people on here who might be soldiers and go abroad on assignment 99.9% of us keyboard warriors on here have no clue about the dangers they face.

We've all seen the same footage. Do you think 6 armed cops who are supposedly trained and experienced could have handled the situation better?

Blazer

Rumple Stillson wrote: »

None of the other officers felt their life was under threat, hence they didn't open fire.

did they say that at the trial?

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.

Blazer wrote: »

did they say that at the trial?

Jawgap gave a good summary of this earlier.

Blazer

And this is the problem.
Cops have to make a split second decision and some make bad decisions.
Do you honestly think that that cop went out to murder someone that day?
He was also found not guilty of 2nd degree manslaughter also.
There's a huge cultural issue around guns in the US and this don't help the cops over there one bit.

“There are no winners in this case, but Mitch Brailsford had to make a split-second decision on a situation that he was trained to recognise as someone drawing a weapon and had one second to react,” Piccarreta said. “He didn’t want to harm Mr Shaver ... The circumstances that night that were presented led him to conclude that he was in danger. Try to make a decision in one second, life or death. It’s pretty hard.”



This case on the other hand was murder.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/22/atlanta-police-shooting-deravis-rogers-james-burns-murder-charge

BattleCorp

Rumple Stillson wrote: »

These people are trained to deal with situations exactly like this. They handled it with total incompetence. The only person whose life was in danger at any point during this exchange was Daniel Shaver's. None of the other officers felt their life was under threat, hence they didn't open fire.

Just a quick point. Not every cop would have had the same view of Shaver as the cop that shot him. Some of the cops could have been covering the hotel door and not watching Shaver. Another point, none of the other cops felt it was safe to handcuff Shaver where he lay or else they would have done it.

It's all well and good saying that cops should be trained to handle situations like this. These are stressful situations for all involved. It isn't easy to train for them. You can practice, but it's not the same as the real thing. Nobody knows 100% how they will react in those kind of situations.

Anybody who thinks cops have it handy, go back and look at the video of the cop being shot earlier in this thread (post #24). It took the bad guy about half a second to shoot the cop. It happened in a blink of an eye. It's all well and good saying that the cop should have done this, that or the other but there often isn't time to think.

I'd hate to be a cop in America. They go out and put their life on the line, and with the proliferation of guns, they know that they could be shot at any time for the simplest of reasons.

While I am not condoning cops killing people needlessly, all cops have a duty to protect themselves. They are real people after all with real families. If I a cop and was in a life or death situation, and I genuinely thought that someone was reaching for a gun to shoot me, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot them.

Here are a couple of lessons that the American public should learn.

1. If you do have a gun in a hotel, keep it in a case and most definitely don't stick it out of a hotel window.

2. If a cop asks you to do something, for fcuk sake, just do exactly as they say. Very very very slowly.

Rumple Stillson

Blazer wrote: »

And this is the problem.
Cops have to make a split second decision and some make bad decisions.
Do you honestly think that that cop went out to murder someone that day?
He was also found not guilty of 2nd degree manslaughter also.
There's a huge cultural issue around guns in the US and this don't help the cops over there one bit.

“There are no winners in this case, but Mitch Brailsford had to make a split-second decision on a situation that he was trained to recognise as someone drawing a weapon and had one second to react,” Piccarreta said. “He didn’t want to harm Mr Shaver ... The circumstances that night that were presented led him to conclude that he was in danger. Try to make a decision in one second, life or death. It’s pretty hard.”



This case on the other hand was murder.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/22/atlanta-police-shooting-deravis-rogers-james-burns-murder-charge

I don't think Brailsford deliberately set out to murder anyone. I think he made a bad decision, which at the minimum suggested he was incompetent. I think he should have a criminal record for his error.

The greater question here though is did Daniel Shaver deserve to die because of his actions, however foolish? A lot of people here were suggesting it was his own fault. I disagree completely and push the blame squarely at Brailsford and Langley.