Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Killing of Daniel Shaver.

Options
13567…13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    BowSideChamp
    Registered Users Posts: 272 ✭✭BowSideChamp


    Justified police shooting imo.


  • Options
    #63
    gctest50
    Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    Jawgap wrote: »
    ...................


    .....I'm just pointing out that, per the evidence from the detective, that once he was prone he could have been cuffed.....

    .....even if they didn't want to go forward they could have tasered him while he was on the deck to be sure he was absolutely no threat.....or even set a K-9 on him to get him to stay prone.


    The police knew there was rifle in the room and maybe a few people

    One of the police might have been shot by someone in the room if they went forward to cuff him

    Getting yer man to crawl towards them reduces the risk


  • Options
    #64
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    gctest50 wrote: »
    The police knew there was rifle in the room and maybe a few people

    One of the police might have been shot by someone in the room if they went forward to cuff him

    Getting yer man to crawl towards them reduces the risk

    So you reckon the investigating detective was wrong?

    What about tasering him, or sending a dog in?


  • Options
    #65
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    This is part and parcel of American gun culture. This is how they want to live.


  • Options
    #66
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    What the hell. He was shouting way too many confusing instructions at the guy. He had his head down when the person before him followed their instructions so he couldn't see how to do it. Totally unnecessary. 5 shots as well? That goes beyond any reasonable measure and into overkill.
    He was just itching to shoot somebody.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    gctest50
    Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    Jawgap wrote: »
    .........


    What about tasering him, or sending a dog in?


    Taser him and he'd be in a pile, still too close to the door ( the hotel room doors are in a V-shape )


  • Options
    #68
    BowSideChamp
    Registered Users Posts: 272 ✭✭BowSideChamp


    anna080 wrote: »
    What the hell. He was shouting way too many confusing instructions at the guy. He had his head down when the person before him followed their instructions so he couldn't see how to do it. Totally unnecessary. 5 shots as well? That goes beyond any reasonable measure and into overkill.
    He was just itching to shoot somebody.

    It was a different police officer who was shouting the commands.


  • Options
    #69
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    gctest50 wrote: »
    Taser him and he'd be in a pile, still too close to the door ( the hotel room doors are in a V-shape )

    Really? because the detective, who investigated the scene, reviewed the video evidence, interviewed the officers concerned etc, thought it (tasering) was a viable option......but you you know different?:rolleyes:

    Have you been in that hotel?


  • Options
    #70
    gctest50
    Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    anna080 wrote: »
    What the hell. He was shouting way too many confusing instructions at the guy. He had his head down when the person before him followed their instructions so he couldn't see how to do it. Totally unnecessary. 5 shots as well? That goes beyond any reasonable measure and into overkill.
    He was just itching to shoot somebody.

    Automatic :



  • Options
    #71
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    razorblunt wrote: »
    What an absolute clusterfúck of a scenario.
    Both men scared witless, except one was in a position of authority.

    The instruction were a mess, imagine being under that much duress and then being told if you messed up again they'd shoot you. Absolute madness.

    Fcuking imagine.
    You'd be concentrating so hard and trying to not do the wrong thing that you'd end up totally confused. Add drink/drugs/terror into the mix and you're bound to fcuk up.
    Crazy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,690 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Make a mistake and there is a good chance you will be shot, jesus christ


  • Options
    #73
    BowSideChamp
    Registered Users Posts: 272 ✭✭BowSideChamp


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Really? because the detective, who investigated the scene, reviewed the video evidence, interviewed the officers concerned etc, thought it (tasering) was a viable option......but you you know different?:rolleyes:

    Have you been in that hotel?

    The police went in with guns to respond to a threat of a man waving a rifle off a balconey. Perfectly reasonable.

    The suspect reached down into his waistband. The policeman was covering the situation with a gun not a taser. To think he could put down his rifle and take out a taser in a split second on the off chance the threat was less than lethal is ridiculous.


  • Options
    #74
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,690 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    BowSideChamp wrote: »
    The police went in with guns to respond to a threat of a man waving a rifle off a balconey. Perfectly reasonable.

    The suspect reached down into his waistband. The policeman was covering the situation with a gun not a taser. To think he could put down his rifle and take out a taser in a split second on the off chance the threat was less than lethal is ridiculous.

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


  • Options
    #75
    gctest50
    Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    Jawgap wrote: »
    ...............


    Have you been in that hotel?

    Those hotel room doors are in a V shape


  • Options
    #76
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    BowSideChamp wrote: »
    The police went in with guns to respond to a threat of a man waving a rifle off a balconey. Perfectly reasonable.

    The suspect reached down into his waistband. The policeman was covering the situation with a gun not a taser. To think he could put down his rifle and take out a taser in a split second on the off chance the threat was less than lethal is ridiculous.

    No, one of the other officers (Doan) had his taser out and was covering both the lady and Shaver - when the lady came forward he still had his taser out so any reason why he couldn't have zapped him?

    Likewise - the more usual way to get a suspect to approach officers in this situation is to get them to pull their shirt up (to show there is nothing in the waistband) - then leave the shirt over their head, turning all the way around and then backing up towards the officers......that's not my fertile imagination, that's from the testimony of an experienced officer who gave evidence in Brailsford's trial.


  • Options
    #77
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    RocketRaccoon wrote: »
    Justified? No. Just no.

    So the cop should wait to see if the suspect shoots at him first?? Suspect went for suicide by cop. Idiotic thing to do. Cop had zero option.


  • Options
    #78
    Rumple Stillson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 876 ✭✭✭Rumple Stillson


    There is absolutely no need for that kid to have been shot and killed given the context of the situation he was in. Anyone with any common sense could have surmised he was drunk, scared and confused. Should have been subdued quickly once he fell to the floor.


  • Options
    #79
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    So the cop should wait to see if the suspect shoots at him first?? Suspect went for suicide by cop. Idiotic thing to do. Cop had zero option.

    That's the whole point - there were numerous options......

    .....cuffing him while prone

    ....hitting him with the taser

    ....sending a dog forward

    ....having him advance to the officers in a different manner

    ....or how about just not sending in a patrol officer with barely 2 years experience as point man with an AR-15......and just to note the AR-15 wasn't police issue, it was his own personal weapon he brought to work with him!!


  • Options
    #80
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    Jawgap wrote: »
    That's the whole point - there were numerous options......

    .....cuffing him while prone

    ....hitting him with the taser

    ....sending a dog forward

    ....having him advance to the officers in a different manner

    ....or how about just not sending in a patrol officer with barely 2 years experience as point man with an AR-15......and just to note the AR-15 wasn't police issue, it was his own personal weapon he brought to work with him!!

    1. The hotel room wasn’t cleared, as far as they were concerned there was another person in the room with a high powered rifle, any officer moving towards the door was putting his life at risk.

    2. Tazed, lies prone on floor, see point 1.

    3. I’ve never seen a dog disarm someone, also do you think he would panic more or less if a dog attacks him??

    4. They followed standard procedure. The female was able to follow the instructions without any issue.

    Any other fairytales for us??


  • Options
    #81
    Ralf and Florian
    Site Banned Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭Ralf and Florian


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    So the cop should wait to see if the suspect shoots at him first?? Suspect went for suicide by cop. Idiotic thing to do. Cop had zero option.

    You're clearly just trolling now.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,690 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    ERG89 wrote: »
    Let's hope opening a hotel room with a keycard is the next test as they had no clue how to. :pac:
    Don't know how to react to the video tbh. The country itself is far too trigger happy but the last one to see that will be themselves.
    I just saw that part of the video now, it's scary that people who can't even work a ****ing hotel door can hold such power of life and death over someone


  • Options
    #83
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,690 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Pinch Flat wrote: »
    Land of the free

    Whoever told you that is your enemy


  • Options
    #84
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    Ralf and Florian wrote: »
    You're clearly just trolling now.

    Have you watched the video?? He clearly reached for the back of his waistband.


  • Options
    #85
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,069 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Jawgap wrote: »
    That's the whole point - there were numerous options......

    .....cuffing him while prone

    ....hitting him with the taser

    ....sending a dog forward

    ....having him advance to the officers in a different manner

    ....or how about just not sending in a patrol officer with barely 2 years experience as point man with an AR-15......and just to note the AR-15 wasn't police issue, it was his own personal weapon he brought to work with him!!
    According to the police report, Brailsford was carrying an AR-15 rifle with the phrase “You’re F—ed” etched into the weapon.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/08/graphic-video-shows-daniel-shaver-sobbing-and-begging-officer-for-his-life-before-2016-shooting/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-national%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.ce1a6fe20727

    A wonderful human being, by the look of it.


  • Options
    #86
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    1. The hotel room wasn’t cleared, as far as they were concerned there was another person in the room with a high powered rifle, any officer moving towards the door was putting his life at risk.

    2. Tazed, lies prone on floor, see point 1.

    3. I’ve never seen a dog disarm someone, also do you think he would panic more or less of a dog attacks him??

    4. They followed standard procedure. The female was able to follow the instructions without any issue.

    Any other fairytales for us??

    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.


  • Options
    #87
    Rumple Stillson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 876 ✭✭✭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.

    End thread.


  • Options
    #88
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    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.

    The same court that cleared him??


  • Options
    #89
    gctest50
    Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    Rumple Stillson wrote: »
    End thread.

    Someones rantings don't matter

    This does :


    A police officer charged with the murder of an unarmed man in the US state of Arizona has been found not guilty.

    Mr Brailsford was acquitted of murder and a lesser manslaughter charge.


  • Options
    #90
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Good oul fashioned execution by a cop now unemployed but will likely end up on another Police force as a hero ,
    One of the most obvious things that could have prevented the shooting was the idiot cop asking him to show he had nothing concealed in his waist band by raising his t-shirt while he was standing with his hands raised,
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,069 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Gatling wrote: »
    Good oul fashioned execution by a cop now unemployed but will likely end up on another Police force as a hero ,
    One of the most obvious things that could have prevented the shooting was the idiot cop asking him to show he had nothing concealed in his waist band by raising his t-shirt while he was standing with his hands raised,

    .....but he'd brought his big gun, and he wasn't going home without having had the chance to use it.


Advertisement