Killing of Daniel Shaver.

Don Kiddick

Rumple Stillson wrote: »

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.

He had a gun...he didn't do as he was told...he died.... next!

weldoninhio

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.

And yet the girl was able to follow the instructions perfectly.

Rumple Stillson

Don Kiddick wrote: »

He had a gun...he didn't do as he was told...he died.... next!

QED

weldoninhio

Rick Shaw wrote: »

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.

Only in Ireland is being a drunken arsehole a legitimate defence. Ridiculous.

darkdubh

Don Kiddick wrote: »

He had a gun...he didn't do as he was told...he died.... next!

You sound like a really decent chap.

Wildsurfer

Never knew they was so many experts on here who have been trained in armed response procedures. I'm no expert but I already knew that if I ever find myself in a situation where someone has a gun pointed at me, the last thing I would do is reach behind me, learned that in da movies! Lots of people don't deserve to die, but if you do something that stupid you can really only blame yourself.

Don Kiddick

Rumple Stillson wrote: »

QED

Could you point out where I said he deserved to die...I stated 3 facts my good man

Don Kiddick

darkdubh wrote: »

You sound like a really decent chap.

Couldn't care less about your opinion

Ralf and Florian

Don Kiddick wrote: »

Couldn't care less about your opinion

Are you on the Proc by any chance?

MarcusP12

What I find disturbing about this case, or at least the outcome, is that the poor guy in question met the same end, i.e. riddled with bullets, as he would have done if he tried to shoot his way out of the hotel (Hollywood style) or was after conducted a mass shooting from his hotel room ala Las Vegas. But he was taken out for his inability to follow complicated instruction whilst in an unbelievably stressful situation and probably half cut, and after making a stupid decision to move his hand in what could be conceived as an attempt to draw a weapon. From a human point of view, all of that doesn't sit right with me.

I can understand the stressful situation that the cops found themselves in and it is quite clear that the guy on the ground was terrified also. I think it is those two similar emotions by the cops and the person they are apprehending that is a sad reflection on American society or at the very least their gun culture. In one case, the cops are (in many ways) understandably trigger happy because they know any random person could be armed and only too willing to shoot and for the guy on the ground, he's $hitting it because he has a cop with a high powered automatic rifle literally telling him he'll be shot if he makes one wrong move. Couple that with the amount of high profile police fatal shooting recently. Crazy state of affairs.

But what's also telling about the situation is that he was acquitted. Some will say that justice was served and the cop was vindicated and maybe so. But to me its sad for American society that this can be seen as a reasonable and proportionate response to the perceived threat. I'm not suggesting they were wrong in their judgement as like everyone else here, i don't know all the facts, but I just think its conditioned in them with their gun culture and overwhelming support of all things military/police force related to believe that there was no other reasonable response. And so the cycle continues. I would be interested to know if it was majority verdict or if the jury had to be unanimous. All it takes is a couple of people to remind themselves of las vegas as a way of biasing their judgement towards acquitting.

We can moan about so many things in Ireland with good reason but I wouldn't swap it for American that's for sure......

Odhinn

Don Kiddick wrote: »

He had a gun...he didn't do as he was told...he died.... next!

He didn't have a gun at the time, afaik.

BattleCorp

Odhinn wrote: »

He didn't have a gun at the time, afaik.

He did have a gun earlier, but didn't at the time of the shooting.

The cop that shot him couldn't have known 100% that Shaver didn't have a gun in his waistband. He has to be considered armed until the cops are 100% sure that he isn't.

mad m

I looked at video, disturbing. Just cant see if they thought he was a real threat , why didn’t they taser him once he was in range. Madness.

smurgen

splinter65 wrote: »

He immediately crossed his legs on being asked. You are ignoring the fact that he took the rifle to the hotel room and set it up on the balcony while he was drunk.
He was very dangerous unpredictable and not in control of himself.
In a state where everyone is armed all of the time, he put himself in mortal danger that day, and sadly he paid the ultimate price.

I don't buy this whole terrified of guns defense when things go wrong.if they were as terrified of being shot as people claim they'd lobby harder for gun control.i think some of them are just aggressive and fantasize of a scenario where they can legally take a life.

end of the road

Blazer wrote: »

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.

no, the cops are to blame for shooting suspects in dubious circumstances. that's what happened here. cops who are justified in shooting suspects don't get dismissed from the force and don't go to trial.
the investigating officers from what i can gather did not recognise the techniques used, the crawling forward especially.

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.

he did follow the main instructions actually. i'm afraid this is a case of murder, or at least a cop being trigger happy, given that the investigating officers were satisfied the officers had other options. i'm afraid your statements don't corelate to the evidence, and the viewpoint of the investigating officers who have experience in such matters.

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

all irrelevant i'm afraid. if the officer was justified in his action in shooting the suspect, he wouldn't have been on trial and he wouldn't have been removed from the force.

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

again, all of that is irrelevant, and the investigating officers disagree with your version of events. they believe and are satisfied that mr Brailsford didn't have to make any split decisian, that it was safe to cuff the suspect.

end of the road

D3V!L wrote: »

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

oh but it's not end of discussion. you see, the experienced officers who investigated the case, accept that the officers who were at the sceene had multiple options in this instant. they also state that some of the techniques used are not recognised by police in general.

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 ?

in america, juries do tend to side with cops for the most part.
it's not the video clip, but the evidence put forward by the investigating officers into this case, which gives us the information, and tells us all we need to know.

Don Kiddick wrote: »

He had a gun...he didn't do as he was told...he died.... next!

he followed the main instructions and died for doing so. he was in a position where it was safe to cuff him when he was shot.

smurgen

splinter65 wrote: »

The victim has to accept some responsibility . The pointing out the window of the rifle was ludicrous, and must have been terrifying for the onlookers.
Who would do that in the current climate?
Your actions have consequences. It was very badly handled but if he hadn’t been acting like an assholehed still be alive.

Your actions have consequesces?you think pointing a rifle out a window justifies 5 bullets being put into someone?are you mentally sound?

smurgen

It's a very sad video to be honest with you.i normally am not effected by graphic videos but the pleading of the man and obvious distress is heartbreaking.i feel very sorry for the ordinary americans out there working away in what seems to be an increasingly dysfunctional country ruled by big organisations with very little accountability.

Don Kiddick

smurgen wrote: »

It's a very sad video to be honest with you.i normally am not effected by graphic videos but the pleading of the man and obvious distress is heartbreaking.i feel very sorry for the ordinary americans out there working away in what seems to be an increasingly dysfunctional country ruled by big organisations with very little accountability.

Damn you Skynet..damn you to hell !

Randle P. McMurphy

I watched the movie 'Detroit' last night. Basically, 3 kids killed by abusive cops in 1967. They were found not guilty too. 50 years on and nothing much has changed.

smurgen

Don Kiddick wrote: »

Damn you Skynet..damn you to hell !

I never seen tourettes play out on a keyboard before.

weldoninhio

smurgen wrote: »

Your actions have consequesces?you think pointing a rifle out a window justifies 5 bullets being put into someone?are you mentally sound?

Do you think cops should have to wait until one of them is shot before they can fire back??

McMurphy

weldoninhio wrote: »

Only in Ireland is being a drunken arsehole a legitimate defence. Ridiculous.

Where are you pulling these ideas from that being a drunken idiot is a defence?

Why give complex coordination requests to someone under the influence of drink when 6 cops, all of which are heavily armed and pointed at their suspect could simply have told him to lay still, not move a muscle, and then someone restrains the suspect?

Would clearly have been a better outcome than shooting someone to death, No?

Don Kiddick

smurgen wrote: »

I never seen tourettes play out on a keyboard before.

Just like incorrect grammar it's been here for aeons

weldoninhio

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Where are you pulling these ideas from that being a drunken idiot is a defence?

Why give complex coordination requests to someone under the influence of drink when 6 cops, all of which are heavily armed and pointed at their suspect could simply have told him to lay still, not move a muscle, and then someone restrains the suspect?

Would clearly have been a better outcome than shooting someone to death, No?

Crawl towards me, don’t bring your arms towards your body. You’re right, you’d need a PHD to understand that. The girl that did it perfectly 2 minutes previously must be a genius.

McMurphy

weldoninhio wrote: »

Crawl towards me, don’t bring your arms towards your body. You’re right, you’d need a PHD to understand that.

"Down on the ground with your arms stretched out in front of you, and don't fcuking move a muscle or we will take action" would probably require less qualifications, and possibly result in fewer deaths.

The girl that did it perfectly 2 minutes previously must be a genius.

Genius or less alcohol in the system?

weldoninhio

Rick Shaw wrote: »

"Down on the ground with your arms stretched out in front of you, and don't fcuking move a muscle or we will take action" would probably require less qualifications, and possibly result in fewer deaths.

Genius or less alcohol in the system?

You are going on as if he was paralytic.

splinter65

weldoninhio wrote: »

Only in Ireland is being a drunken arsehole a legitimate defence. Ridiculous.

This is one of the cultural differences.
Being drunk here earns you sympathy and understanding when you get yourself in a sticky situation.
You’re automatically entitled to more leeway and wriggle room cos, well, which drunken Irishman hasn’t invited strangers back to his hotel room to look at his rifle?
Sure it could happen a Bishop.

end of the road

weldoninhio wrote: »

Do you think cops should have to wait until one of them is shot before they can fire back??

the investigating officers were satisfied in this case that it was safe to cuff the suspect and that the officers weren't in any danger.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Crawl towards me, don’t bring your arms towards your body. You’re right, you’d need a PHD to understand that. The girl that did it perfectly 2 minutes previously must be a genius.

the investigating officers didn't recognise such instructions as being standard instructions to be issued.

McMurphy

weldoninhio wrote: »

You are going on as if he was paralytic.

Am I?

I thought I said very clearly that he had drink on board and was scared shıtless?

Not a great combination when your having coordination instructions roared at you by 6 armed cops, ready to pull the trigger if you make a mistake with your manoeuvres.

Which brings us back to how I think simply telling him to get on the ground and not move a muscle would have been a better idea, for obvious reasons.

You seem to think the cops methods - which evidently are far from flawless was a better approach, yet someone was killed.

I'm happy enough with my stance regardless.