Killing of Daniel Shaver.

punisher5112

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.

Hold on....

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

How were they to know he wasn't armed.

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

MarcusP12

One of the more disturbing threads I've come across in after hours....not only because of the actual topic but also because of the attitude of a lot of people on here. Its almost like we're discussing a referee's decision in the Manchester derby! What I find fascinating is the lack of empathy for the victim. Sure he was a clown for getting himself in the situation in the first place but I despair of a world that thinks getting shot 5 times for a mistake, even the reaching to his waist, is somehow justified or acceptable. I think it is possible to "understand" how the scenario unfolded without actually agreeing with the outcome, as is the case with some, or even endorsing it, as in the case with others.

A couple of additional point to consider though. When the guy was on the floor crawling and was reaching back to his waist, i'm struggling to understand, in the ideal world, how there was no time for the cops to determine if he was reaching for a weapon. Think about it, he's reaching back, he has to get the weapon into his hand correctly, he has to reach forward and motion his arm outstretched, a full 180 degrees, before he can take aim and fire. That is not a split second action, especially for a man in his state. We're not dealing with Jason bourne here. The guy was in an extremely distressed state and I don't think he was capable of performing that action in a time sufficiently whereby it was necessary to take him out as quickly as they did. Remember, also that the cops were already focused and aimed on him and could react instantly if the movement did turn threatening. They are trained to react to situation and make split second decisions under stress. In an ideal world, they could have determined that he was not making a threatening movement for a gun if they had allowed a fraction, just a fraction longer. And maybe that's what happened with 5 out of the 6. Unfortunately, all it takes is for one trigger happy cop to react without allowing that fraction extra and the guy is toast. Its no coincidence that the guy to react had what he had etched on his gun. Doesn't strike me as the type of person who thinks twice about killing someone.

Also, I would love to know if they have ever done a study to see how often a suspect, crawling on his knees, drunk, in a state of extreme stress, crying, literally begging for his life has ever turned a gun on the cops while being apprehended. I'm going to take a wild guess and say it has most likely never happened like we saw. The reason I would say this is that I can understand the nerves and stress of a cop based on some of the other videos we've seen whereby a suspect has been resisting arrest or refusing to cooperate and is in an upright position or seated in a car or something.....I just don't see the same threat in how this guy was positioned.......trigger happy cop simple as but as I've said, its an unfortunate consequence of American society......

Flippyfloppy

Although it was hard I watched the video again, and stopped just before the shooting.

I noticed that when he transitioned to all fours he really got confused between the various positions he had to remain in - legs staying crossed yet crawling, seemed like arms up but crawling at one point.

When he got to his knees the officer shouted keep your legs crossed, and Daniel started sobbing and said ok, and then he actually put his two hands behind the back too and I assumed crossed them.

Incidentally, when his two hands were behind his back for some time and he didn't pull out a hand gun it was pretty obvious he wasn't armed.

I think it speaks volumes that the officer kept repeating along the lines of 'if you make another mistake we will shoot you......' The officer knew they were all just mistakes, not even defiance.

I agree with another poster who blamed the officer calling out the instructions. He set up the whole thing to fail imo.

weldoninhio

MarcusP12 wrote: »

One of the more disturbing threads I've come across in after hours....not only because of the actual topic but also because of the attitude of a lot of people on here. Its almost like we're discussing a referee's decision in the Manchester derby! What I find fascinating is the lack of empathy for the victim. Sure he was a clown for getting himself in the situation in the first place but I despair of a world that thinks getting shot 5 times for a mistake, even the reaching to his waist, is somehow justified or acceptable. I think it is possible to "understand" how the scenario unfolded without actually agreeing with the outcome, as is the case with some, or even endorsing it, as in the case with others.

A couple of additional point to consider though. When the guy was on the floor crawling and was reaching back to his waist, i'm struggling to understand, in the ideal world, how there was no time for the cops to determine if he was reaching for a weapon. Think about it, he's reaching back, he has to get the weapon into his hand correctly, he has to reach forward and motion his arm outstretched, a full 180 degrees, before he can take aim and fire. That is not a split second action, especially for a man in his state. We're not dealing with Jason bourne here. The guy was in an extremely distressed state and I don't think he was capable of performing that action in a time sufficiently whereby it was necessary to take him out as quickly as they did. Remember, also that the cops were already focused and aimed on him and could react instantly if the movement did turn threatening. They are trained to react to situation and make split second decisions under stress. In an ideal world, they could have determined that he was not making a threatening movement for a gun if they had allowed a fraction, just a fraction longer. And maybe that's what happened with 5 out of the 6. Unfortunately, all it takes is for one trigger happy cop to react without allowing that fraction extra and the guy is toast. Its no coincidence that the guy to react had what he had etched on his gun. Doesn't strike me as the type of person who thinks twice about killing someone.

Also, I would love to know if they have ever done a study to see how often a suspect, crawling on his knees, drunk, in a state of extreme stress, crying, literally begging for his life has ever turned a gun on the cops while being apprehended. I'm going to take a wild guess and say it has most likely never happened like we saw. The reason I would say this is that I can understand the nerves and stress of a cop based on some of the other videos we've seen whereby a suspect has been resisting arrest or refusing to cooperate and is in an upright position or seated in a car or something.....I just don't see the same threat in how this guy was positioned.......trigger happy cop simple as but as I've said, its an unfortunate consequence of American society......

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.

Jawgap

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.

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

Maybe go look at the video of the investigating detective who said it wasn't a threatening gesture, and Shaver was bring compliant?

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.

No, Langley said he would've shot but Brailsford was in the way.

Plus, as was pointed out in the trial, there was no sympathetic firing which would be expected if any one of the other cops perceived a threat.

EDIT: Elmore, the cop on the left in the video, said, in evidence, he did not perceive Shaver to be a threat.

up for anything

He must have been so scared. When he was told to cross his left leg over his right he got so confused. I would have been too. Thank feck our police aren't armed for the most part. Most of them wouldn't be able to handle the stress of it and the stress of being under threat themselves. The Americans are no different. I'm not sure what the answer is though. Armed response units like we have here maybe instead of every man jack having a gun although his gun wasn't any old gun... it was called 'You're Fucked'.

weldoninhio

Jawgap wrote: »

Maybe go look at the video of the investigating detective who said it wasn't a threatening gesture, and Shaver was bring compliant?



No, Langley said he would've shot but Brailsford was in the way.

Plus, as was pointed out in the trial, there was no sympathetic firing which would be expected if any one of the other cops perceived a threat.

EDIT: Elmore, the cop on the left in the video, said, in evidence, he did not perceive Shaver to be a threat.

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.”

Bob Harris

If you isolate the few seconds where the victim put his hand to his waist then the you can justify the killing by simply referring to police training and how they are to respond to that type of movement.

When viewed as a whole it was dealt with by an officer who had neither the training nor the composure to deal with the situation.

Chrongen

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.

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

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.

darkdubh

MarcusP12 wrote: »

One of the more disturbing threads I've come across in after hours....not only because of the actual topic but also because of the attitude of a lot of people on here. Its almost like we're discussing a referee's decision in the Manchester derby! What I find fascinating is the lack of empathy for the victim. Sure he was a clown for getting himself in the situation in the first place but I despair of a world that thinks getting shot 5 times for a mistake, even the reaching to his waist, is somehow justified or acceptable. I think it is possible to "understand" how the scenario unfolded without actually agreeing with the outcome, as is the case with some, or even endorsing it, as in the case with others.

A couple of additional point to consider though. When the guy was on the floor crawling and was reaching back to his waist, i'm struggling to understand, in the ideal world, how there was no time for the cops to determine if he was reaching for a weapon. Think about it, he's reaching back, he has to get the weapon into his hand correctly, he has to reach forward and motion his arm outstretched, a full 180 degrees, before he can take aim and fire. That is not a split second action, especially for a man in his state. We're not dealing with Jason bourne here. The guy was in an extremely distressed state and I don't think he was capable of performing that action in a time sufficiently whereby it was necessary to take him out as quickly as they did. Remember, also that the cops were already focused and aimed on him and could react instantly if the movement did turn threatening. They are trained to react to situation and make split second decisions under stress. In an ideal world, they could have determined that he was not making a threatening movement for a gun if they had allowed a fraction, just a fraction longer. And maybe that's what happened with 5 out of the 6. Unfortunately, all it takes is for one trigger happy cop to react without allowing that fraction extra and the guy is toast. Its no coincidence that the guy to react had what he had etched on his gun. Doesn't strike me as the type of person who thinks twice about killing someone.

Also, I would love to know if they have ever done a study to see how often a suspect, crawling on his knees, drunk, in a state of extreme stress, crying, literally begging for his life has ever turned a gun on the cops while being apprehended. I'm going to take a wild guess and say it has most likely never happened like we saw. The reason I would say this is that I can understand the nerves and stress of a cop based on some of the other videos we've seen whereby a suspect has been resisting arrest or refusing to cooperate and is in an upright position or seated in a car or something.....I just don't see the same threat in how this guy was positioned.......trigger happy cop simple as but as I've said, its an unfortunate consequence of American society......

Repped. Some of the attitudes on the display here are frightening.

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).