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
12467…13

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Ralf and Florian
    Site Banned Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭Ralf and Florian


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Have you watched the video?? He clearly reached for the back of his waistband.

    There is nothing in that video to suggest "suicide by cop". Do you even understand what the term means?


  • Options
    #93
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    The same court that cleared him??

    No, the court found him not guilty......they found the required burden of proof hadn't been met.

    That still doesn't change the evidence, nor does it change the opinion of experienced police officers who've investigated the vase that there were plenty of other options for the officers concerned when they arrived on the scene.....

    ......Shaver's death was not an inevitable consequence of him brandishing the pellet gun.


  • Options
    #94
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    Ralf and Florian wrote: »
    There is nothing in that video to suggest "suicide by cop". Do you even understand what the term means?

    It means you do something which forces a police officer to shoot you. Something like, say, in an active gunman situation, reaching for your waistband after being told numerous times not to.


  • Options
    #95
    Wailin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,416 ✭✭✭Wailin


    To the people on here who think the cop took the correct course of action, you are cold blooded human beings. That young lad was murdered by a psychopath who has no right to be an officer of law. You should be ashamed of yourselves. I wonder would you come to the same conclusion if that was your son lying there.


  • Options
    #96
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    Jawgap wrote: »
    No, the court found him not guilty......they found the required burden of proof hadn't been met.

    That still doesn't change the evidence, nor does it change the opinion of experienced police officers who've investigated the vase that there were plenty of other options for the officers concerned when they arrived on the scene.....

    ......Shaver's death was not an inevitable consequence of him brandishing the pellet gun.

    Your last sentence is 100% correct. It was, however, a consequence of him reaching back to his waistband after being told multiple times, to keep his hands in sight and away from his body.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    It means you do something which forces a police officer to shoot you. Something like, say, in an active gunman situation, reaching for your waistband after being told numerous times not to.

    I think you'll find that a prerequisite for suicide by cop is that the individual has to be suicidal in the first place......I've seen/read nothing to suggest he was suicidal


  • Options
    #98
    razorblunt
    Registered Users Posts: 17,300 ✭✭✭✭razorblunt


    anna080 wrote: »
    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.

    That's it exactly:
    "link your legs"
    "Put your hands on the floor in front of you"
    "Get on your knees"
    ...confusion

    "I said cross your fcking legs"
    "put your hands up"
    -other officer "put your hands straight up in the air"
    -shooter "You drop your hands again we'll shoot you"
    "now crawl forward"


    I was having a tough time following it from my kitchen drinking a cup of tea FFS.


  • Options
    #99
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,078 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Your last sentence is 100% correct. It was, however, a consequence of him reaching back to his waistband after being told multiple times, to keep his hands in sight and away from his body.

    He was being ordered to move in a way contrary to ordinary practice. There's a reason to abide by standard practice, and not bring what you saw on TV the night before, that being to avoid people being killed.


  • Options
    #100
    Ralf and Florian
    Site Banned Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭Ralf and Florian


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    It means you do something which forces a police officer to shoot you. Something like, say, in an active gunman situation, reaching for your waistband after being told numerous times not to.

    It means deliberately setting out to get the police to shoot you, usually by pointing a gun at them. It's patently obvious that there was no way that guy wanted to get shot.


  • Options
    #101
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Your last sentence is 100% correct. It was, however, a consequence of him reaching back to his waistband after being told multiple times, to keep his hands in sight and away from his body.

    Again, no.

    Siper, the lead detective testified this was not threatening.....but I'm sure you know better than an experienced police detective.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Set up a rifle?

    Except he didn't - he pointed it momentarily out the window and not in the direction of the pool......the police were called (a reasonable reaction)......they arrived, telephoned the room and told the occupants to come out - the lady first......she came out, then he came out......they didn't storm the room.

    Do you accept the evidence given by the investigating detective that Shaver was being compliant and that it was more than possible for the police to have secure him when he was prone? One other officer present said the gesture was not threatening and the detective also reckoned it was not as threatening as Brailsford suggested.

    Another officer acknowledged that Shaver seem to be confused by all the instructions (he was subsequently found to be four times over the alcohol limit).

    That being the case, how is it possible he was in any way responsible for his own death?

    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.


  • Options
    #103
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    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.

    Hardly. There was a fixed screen in front of the window that couldn't be opened and evidence was that the rifle was brandished, not pointed at anyone.

    And yes, in this case the actions did have consequences......the police were properly called and made sure they were there in sufficient numbers before proceeding....I don't think anyone has any issues with that.

    The issue is how they dealt with the situation after he and Portillo left the room.

    Extremely poorly would be the conclusion I'd draw from the evidence.

    Actions do have consequences, but you overlook the proportionality aspect of that axiom.


  • Options
    #104
    gctest50
    Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    Jawgap wrote: »

    ......Shaver's death was not an inevitable consequence of him brandishing the pellet gun.


    This is one of what he was poking out the window :
    JcBhQOT.jpg


    brought up to the hotel room in this case :

    dwH9yVe.jpg


  • Options
    #105
    gctest50
    Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    This is the pool as seen from Shavers hotel room :

    The people in the pool who saw Shaver poking the rifle out the window must have been terrified :

    WsuBNSj.jpg


  • Options
    #106
    Conservative
    Registered Users Posts: 596 ✭✭✭Conservative


    Even in the USA if you start waving firearms about like he did you put yourself at high risk.

    Combine that with the fact that he was told to crawl forwards (and bizarrely reaches for his waist!??) that can have you shot. Tough luck.

    5 bullets from an automatic rifle would seem quite restrained.

    Poorly handled without a doubt but I can understand why he was acquitted.


  • Options
    #107
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Conservative wrote: »
    Even in the USA if you start waving firearms about like he did you put yourself at high risk.

    Combine that with the fact that he was told to crawl forwards (and bizarrely reaches for his waist!??) that can have you shot. Tough luck.

    5 bullets from an automatic rifle would seem quite restrained.

    5 single rapidly fired shots from a semi automatic rifle ,

    Still completely unjustified
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #108
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,078 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    gctest50 wrote: »
    This is the pool as seen from Shavers hotel room :

    The people in the pool who saw Shaver poking the rifle out the window must have been terrified :

    But that's not when he was shot.


  • Options
    #109
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,036 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It looks pretty messed up. But he went to trial, there was a 6 week hearing, and a jury acquitted.

    this is 1 case where that really doesn't mean much, as in america a jury is nearly always likely to acquit someone who was a cop.
    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Justified kill in my eyes. Suspect reached for his waistband and gave the cop no option. Easy to say give the suspect a second to see if he pulls a gun but that’s nonsense.

    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.

    you must have been watching a different video. if there was any chance of a gun being pulled all or some of the officers would have opened fire. that is what usually happens. cop was the author of the suspect's demise. there was no Acting the maggot. he followed the main instructions. he was not instructed to not pull up his pants.
    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.


    the Suspect didn't go for suicide by cop. no such declaration was made by the relevant authorities from what i can find. cop had options. if he had 0 option he wouldn't have been sacked from his job and there would have been no trial. sorry, but none of your statements in this thread corelate to the evidence.
    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.

    the evidence doesn't seem to state that the suspect had been "acting like an asshole"
    it was quite likely he wasn't getting out alive with this particular cop being on the sceene. none of your statements corelate to the evidence either i'm afraid.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #110
    Beechwoodspark
    Registered Users Posts: 15,425 ✭✭✭✭Beechwoodspark


    My two cents:

    Cop is a power crazed wack job who should've never been given a fire arm in the first place

    As someone else said earlier in thread, justice would be him being at the receiving end of a similar event at some stage in the near future.


  • Options
    #111
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    gctest50 wrote: »
    This is one of what he was poking out the window :




    brought up to the hotel room in this case :

    Ok, it wasn't "poking out the window."

    How could it have been when evidence was given as regards the fact that the window a fixed unopenable screen in front of it.

    Look, I get people want to support the police (I've family who are members of AGS) but you overlook the fact that there are good cops, incompetent cops and bad cops. I think in this case the cop was completely incompetent and Shaver paid for it pleading for his life in a burst of automatic gunfire.

    Six cops were present, only one chose to fire.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,078 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Ok, it wasn't "poking out the window."

    How could it have been when evidence was given as regards the fact that the window a fixed unopenable screen in front of it.

    Look, I get people want to support the police (I've family who are members of AGS) but you overlook the fact that there are good cops, incompetent cops and bad cops. I think in this case the cop was completely incompetent and Shaver paid for it pleading for his life in a burst of automatic gunfire.

    Six cops were present, only one chose to fire.

    ....the whole gun out the window thing is irrelevant though, as he was shot in a corridor with no long arm in sight.


  • Options
    #113
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Odhinn wrote: »
    ....the whole gun out the window thing is irrelevant though, as he was shot in a corridor with no long arm in sight.

    I think the rifle is relevant insofar as it justified the police response and the decision to use AR-15s (even if the one Brailsford had was his own and not police issue)......but once the guy is out and prone that's where it all gets skewed.

    At that point the officers have any number of options about how to proceed. And even in how they get him to come towards them, they have options. If they'd stuck to the accepted procedure instead of getting creative it's quite likely a better outcome would've resulted.


  • Options
    #114
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,036 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Conservative wrote: »
    Even in the USA if you start waving firearms about like he did you put yourself at high risk.

    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.
    Conservative wrote: »
    Combine that with the fact that he was told to crawl forwards (and bizarrely reaches for his waist!??) that can have you shot. Tough luck.

    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.
    Conservative wrote: »
    5 bullets from an automatic rifle would seem quite restrained.

    it's more then enough to get the job done.
    Conservative wrote: »
    Poorly handled without a doubt but I can understand why he was acquitted.

    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.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #115
    Bob Harris
    Registered Users Posts: 3,462 ✭✭✭Bob Harris


    Wearing a uniform doesn't absolve him from murder which it undoubtedly is.
    It sounds like the cop was trying to confuse him into making a mistake to have the
    excuse to shoot him.


  • Options
    #116
    gctest50
    Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    Bob Harris wrote: »
    Wearing a uniform doesn't absolve him from murder which it undoubtedly is.

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


  • Options
    #117
    Dr Crayfish
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,960 ✭✭✭Dr Crayfish


    Why does anyone care about gun violence in that stupid country any more? Leave them at it.


  • Options
    #118
    Bob Harris
    Registered Users Posts: 3,462 ✭✭✭Bob Harris


    gctest50 wrote: »
    He was acquitted of murder

    What he was acquitted of and what I think it is are two different things.


  • Options
    #119
    Don Kiddick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,080 ✭✭✭Don Kiddick


    Bob Harris wrote: »
    What he was acquitted of and what I think it is are two different things.

    Ah!.... but only one of these things matters to anybody


  • Options
    #120
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    Bob Harris wrote: »
    What he was acquitted of and what I think it is are two different things.

    Sure it was only a water pistol. What it actually was and what I think it is are two different things.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    mynamejeff
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭mynamejeff


    end of the road wrote: »
    this is 1 case where that really doesn't mean much, as in america a jury is nearly always likely to acquit someone who was a cop.



    you must have been watching a different video. if there was any chance of a gun being pulled all or some of the officers would have opened fire. that is what usually happens. cop was the author of the suspect's demise. there was no Acting the maggot. he followed the main instructions. he was not instructed to not pull up his pants.




    the Suspect didn't go for suicide by cop. no such declaration was made by the relevant authorities from what i can find. cop had options. if he had 0 option he wouldn't have been sacked from his job and there would have been no trial. sorry, but none of your statements in this thread corelate to the evidence.



    the evidence doesn't seem to state that the suspect had been "acting like an asshole"
    it was quite likely he wasn't getting out alive with this particular cop being on the sceene. none of your statements corelate to the evidence either i'm afraid.

    talking utter nonsense as per usual

    really havent a clue do ya


Advertisement