Killing of Daniel Shaver.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

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.

As it transpired.

end of the road wrote: »

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

They could hardly have been simpler nonetheless

Where did you get your information what the investigating offices say?

Rick Shaw

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?

I think the police had to get them away from the doorway in case a third person with a gun was in the room.

Noveight

Shot like he was a dog in the street. Crazy.

weldoninhio

Rick Shaw wrote: »

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.

Did you watch a different video? Only one cop was issuing instructions on the one I watched.

punisher5112

Has anyone watched videos where the police are shot at point blank in the head or body etc.

Its a scary place to be a cop.

He was told to move towards them and not reach back for any reason, he did and it takes very little to get a shot off as a hand gun is ideal in enclosed spaces as accuracy isn't as bad as out in the open.

None of us were there but anyone is a threat and to have reports some thick fool is pointing a rifle out of a window is one serious threat.

Richard Hillman

It wasn't like he disobeyed orders for the first time, he repeatedly did it. Saying that though, the whole protocol was stupid. After the lady was taken they could have easily just told him to get in a starfish position and taken him from there. Or at least let him look at the lady getting taken away so he could copy.

The cop was a bit trigger happy but he followed procedure.

McMurphy

weldoninhio wrote: »

Did you watch a different video? Only one cop was issuing instructions on the one I watched.

Lol, it's like the cops weren't operating as a team?

I admire your amazing ability to take a whole post and introduce some petty semantics into it though.

weldoninhio

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Lol, it's like the cops weren't operating as a team?

I admire your amazing ability to take a whole post and introduce some petty semantics into it though.

By calling you out on your waffle??

Thanks.

smurgen

Don Kiddick wrote: »

Just like incorrect grammar it's been here for aeons

You've come to terms with your disabilities.It's good to be good to yourself.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

As it transpired.





They could hardly have been simpler nonetheless

Where did you get your information what the investigating offices say?

again, whether they were simple or not is irrelevant. they were not standard instructions over all, so should have not been issued.
the standard instructions are get on the ground and don't move, or come out with your back facing and hands in the air.
the suspect complied with the main instructions and still got shot. the evidence provided is the only thing that is relevant, and they don't corelate to suggesting the officer was justified in his shooting of the suspect. therefore it wasn't justified.

Richard Hillman wrote: »

It wasn't like he disobeyed orders for the first time, he repeatedly did it. Saying that though, the whole protocol was stupid. After the lady was taken they could have easily just told him to get in a starfish position and taken him from there. Or at least let him look at the lady getting taken away so he could copy.

The cop was a bit trigger happy but he followed procedure.

he obviously didn't fully follow procedure otherwise he wouldn't have been on trial. same with the officer issuing instructions, which the investigating officers with all their experience didn't recognise as being procedural instructions.

weldoninhio wrote: »

By calling you out on your waffle??

Thanks.

the only one who got called out is your good self. not only does the evidence provided not corelate to your statements and go against your viewpoint making it invalid, but you tried twisting people's posts and it backfired.

McMurphy

weldoninhio wrote: »

By calling you out on your waffle??

Thanks.

What waffle?

Is this your idea of debate btw?

At least this lad gives his own countenance

I think the police had to get them away from the doorway in case a third person with a gun was in the room.

Whereas you just seem to want to dismiss folk without giving your own input, and ascribing stuff to people that was never said.

Odhinn

BattleCorp wrote: »

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.

He had what appeared to be a Rifle earlier. I can 100% say that they knew he didn't have what appeared to be a Rifle in his waistband.

smurgen

weldoninhio wrote: »

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

Where did i say that?at what point here was a cop about to be shot?people with bad nerves should be kept away from guns,just like this cop.he obviously was not up to the job.

smurgen

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.

You don't sound very smart.

AnGaelach

jonon9 wrote: »

Believe what you want to believe but America has a very serious problem with guns and its bread through paranoia and upbringing. My opinion is America is too far gone to change the 2nd amendment too much time and money is invested in this. Remember the US 2nd amendment was written in a time where a solider could fire 2-3 rounds per minute, there was no way the founding fathers could predict that we would have semi/auto rifles that could blow your freaking head of in a matter of seconds. Like I said its all about upbringing and paranoia.

Except for the Ribauldequin which originated in the 1400s, Nock Gun was 1779, and the Pucklegun in 1718. You could own warships back when they wrote the US Constitution. Can ye stop with this nonsense that the poor old American founding fathers were ignorant of technological improvements?

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the police had to get them away from the doorway in case a third person with a gun was in the room.

Even though Langley, the Sergeant in command, admitted under oath that he quite satisfied there wasn't?

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

, which the investigating officers with all their experience didn't recognise as being procedural instructions.


.

Where did you get your information what the investigating officers say?

Don Kiddick

smurgen wrote: »

You've come to terms with your disabilities.It's good to be good to yourself.

Even your edit was a bit incoherent

BattleCorp

Odhinn wrote: »

He had what appeared to be a Rifle earlier. I can 100% say that they knew he didn't have what appeared to be a Rifle in his waistband.

Yep, I'll agree with your statement there. It's fair to say he didn't have a rifle in his waistband. But how were the cops to know that he didn't have a handgun in his waistband?

I'm not trying to be awkward or argue with you for the sake of it. It's a serious point. How would the cops know the guy was unarmed?

smurgen

splinter65 wrote: »

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.

Being drunk isn't illegal.Having a gun isn't illegal.Shooting an unarmed person 5 times in the chest is illegal.
ireland is a utopia compared to the U.S.in my opinion and this video further reinforces that notion for me.

Odhinn

BattleCorp wrote: »

Yep, I'll agree with your statement there. It's fair to say he didn't have a rifle in his waistband. But how were the cops to know that he didn't have a handgun in his waistband?

I'm not trying to be awkward or argue with you for the sake of it. It's a serious point. How would the cops know the guy was unarmed?

They'd no sight of a gun, so unless they're presuming he's armed unless naked....?

The fact is that yer man didn't go through the normal procedure, and when this poor out of his head eejit twitched the wrong way, he drilled him with his Big Boy Gun.

riffmongous

BattleCorp wrote: »

Yep, I'll agree with your statement there. It's fair to say he didn't have a rifle in his waistband. But how were the cops to know that he didn't have a handgun in his waistband?

I'm not trying to be awkward or argue with you for the sake of it. It's a serious point. How would the cops know the guy was unarmed?

It is a fair point, but I think I read earlier that there are procedures to check this, (like getting a suspect with his hands in the air to pull up his shirt up over his head from the neck), which were not done here

BattleCorp

Odhinn wrote: »

They'd no sight of a gun, so unless they're presuming he's armed unless naked....?

The fact is that yer man didn't go through the normal procedure, and when this poor out of his head eejit twitched the wrong way, he drilled him with his Big Boy Gun.

If I was a cop in America, fcuked if I'd assume that any suspect was unarmed, especially a suspect that was known to be armed a few minutes earlier.

My point here is that the cops 'SHOULD' presume that he is armed and take relevant precautions.

I don't understand your point about the Big Boy Gun. Shaver would have been just as dead if he had been shot with a handgun. In fact, the 9mm handgun bullets are bigger than the .223 rounds that are fired from an AR15. I'd prefer to be shot with neither by the way.

Shaver was an idiot. Sticking guns out the window of a hotel, especially after the Las Vegas incident, is a pure mental thing to do. Did he deserve to die for being stupid, no. But I do feel sympathy for the cop. Shaver reached for his waistband. Incredibly dumb thing to do under the circumstances. If the cop felt that Shaver was going for a gun (and I can't speak for what the cop felt), then he was justified in shooting Shaver. The jury agreed that this was the case.

Odhinn

BattleCorp wrote: »

If I was a cop in America, fcuked if I'd assume that any suspect was unarmed, especially a suspect that was known to be armed a few minutes earlier.

My point here is that the cops 'SHOULD' presume that he is armed and take relevant precautions.

I don't understand your point about the Big Boy Gun. Shaver would have been just as dead if he had been shot with a handgun. In fact, the 9mm handgun bullets are bigger than the .223 rounds that are fired from an AR15. I'd prefer to be shot with neither by the way.

Shaver was an idiot. Sticking guns out the window of a hotel, especially after the Las Vegas incident, is a pure mental thing to do. Did he deserve to die for being stupid, no. But I do feel sympathy for the cop. Shaver reached for his waistband. Incredibly dumb thing to do under the circumstances. If the cop felt that Shaver was going for a gun (and I can't speak for what the cop felt), then he was justified in shooting Shaver.

The fact it was his own, with "you're fucked" engraved on it.

BattleCorp

Odhinn wrote: »

The fact it was his own, with "you're ****ed" engraved on it.

It wasn't his own. It was his police issue firearm. Owned by the police.

I will agree with you though, writing that crap on a gun shouldn't be done by anybody, especially a cop. It shows a level of immaturity on behalf of the cop. It was one of the reasons that the cop was sacked.

It doesn't show murderous intent though.

My point still stands that the cops were right not to assume he was unarmed.

I will withdraw my previous mention of the Las Vegas incident where multiple people were shot. That incident happened well after this shooting. My bad.

gctest50

Odhinn wrote: »

The fact it was his own .......

Some police officers are allowed buy their own, provided it's approved

When I started, I was issued a Smith and Wesson model 66 revolver.
Then, I bought my own Smith and Wesson 5906 9mm.
After seeing how the 9mm performed through a windshield I went to the Glock 20 10mm.
I carried that until [the department] went to the Sig 226 9mm.
They would issue you the revolver but if you wanted to carry anything else you had to purchase it yourself.

- Sheriff D. L. Hodges of Cumberland County, Virginia

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

Where did you get your information what the investigating officers say?

Detetective Sipe who lead the investigation into the shooting gave evidence and his testimony is available on YouTube.

He describes the crawling procedure as unusual and says the more usual procedure is to have someone pull their shirt over their head turnaround and walk backwards towards the officers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzELHfulLXg

Jawgap

gctest50 wrote: »

Some police officers are allowed buy their own, provided it's approved

Hell of a difference between replacing a service issue 9mm or .45 with another, privately purchased 9mm or .45 and buying a AR-15, with a 27 round mag and touting that at an incident......it's not clear from his statement he was even qualified on the AR-15 but he was a member of a rifle club.

gctest50

Jawgap wrote: »

Hell of a difference between replacing a service issue 9mm or .45 with another, privately purchased 9mm or .45 and buying a AR-15, with a 27 round mag and touting that at an incident......it's not clear from his statement he was even qualified on the AR-15 but he was a member of a rifle club.

Some police departments allow officers to buy their own - if it's on the approved list

riffmongous

AnGaelach wrote: »

Except for the Ribauldequin which originated in the 1400s, Nock Gun was 1779, and the Pucklegun in 1718. You could own warships back when they wrote the US Constitution. Can ye stop with this nonsense that the poor old American founding fathers were ignorant of technological improvements?

Eh they were all failures, there's a good chance they were never heard of