Video shows police killing of Daniel Shaver in Mesa, Arizona (viewer discretion advised)

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: jacobe001

Yea not quite "that one event."

The Miami FBI shootout was the catalyst for agencies moving from revolvers to semi-autos. Columbine completely changed the way emergency personnel respond to an active shooter event. Some douchenozzle in Vermont showed small town law enforcement that they're not immune to big city violence.

The list goes on.

How come it is ok for police to have a few of their own killed and to rewrite the books across the country but yet when innocent civilians are killed we can ignore it?

I hope you don't expect me to answer that strawman? Since it's the exact opposite of what I just said, I mean.

You still have not answered though on what should be done.
Just call it a bad shoot and chalk it up as collateral damage?

If one innocent person is killed in our country, that should be enough reason to review policy, yes?
The person that was killed did not come to the cops, the cops came to him, they held the upper hand in weapons and approach.

If they failed to show up in this instance, that person would still be alive and no one else around him would be dead.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: Grambler

courage is not having bad opsec...

Please.

Your tough guy persona impresses no one.

If you want to threaten violence just come out and do it.

a reply to: jacobe001

You haven't asked me what should be done so you're correct, I haven't answered that question.

What you do keep trying to do is ask me if we can learn anything from incidents like this one, which I have answered (more than once) in the affirmative. Why you keep asking me a question I've already answered with what I presume is not only an answer I believe in but one which you approve of as if I'm somehow ducking your question is, frankly, a little perplexing.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: jacobe001

You haven't asked me what should be done so you're correct, I haven't answered that question.

What you do keep trying to do is ask me if we can learn anything from incidents like this one, which I have answered (more than once) in the affirmative. Why you keep asking me a question I've already answered with what I presume is not only an answer I believe in but one which you approve of as if I'm somehow ducking your question is, frankly, a little perplexing.

Ok, I just read through your responses, but like you accuse others of, they rest more own personal opinions and self defensive interests, which you also cited in one of the posts yourself rather than policy and law as you are required to uphold.

My question is one of policy now rather than personal opinion as all your posts allude to, in that what as a matter of policy, would you like to see changed to prevent from innocents being shot?

Was it a criminal act? I don't know. Bad shoot? In my opinion yea, it's a bad shoot. Criminal? I'm not sure I'd go that far. Negligent? Yea, I'd go that far.

How about just freeze turkey?

a reply to: jacobe001

Ok, I just read through your responses, but like you accuse others of, they rest more own personal opinions and self defensive interests, which you also cited in one of the posts yourself rather than policy and law as you are required to uphold.

I know, it's weird how when offering my opinion on something I give my opinion. I hate it when people do that.

What I "accuse" others of is ignoring the law and facts in evidence and reacting emotionally to the incident, rather than looking at the totality of the circumstances, the law, and coming to a conclusion based on those rather than coming to a conclusion based on emotion.

My question is one of policy now rather than personal opinion as all your posts allude to, in that what as a matter of policy, would you like to see changed to prevent from innocents being shot?

Short of disarming law enforcement and ceasing all LE/public interaction, nothing is going to get us to a point of zero deaths. People are people, and when one person is interacting with another person, there's always a risk of either one causing something to happen unintentionally. More training helps. Better training helps.

I suppose, as a matter of policy, "don't have suspects try to walk on their knees because it's a ridiculous thing to do and it takes too long to explain it to them and it's ripe for misunderstanding" would be a good start.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

Short of disarming law enforcement and ceasing all LE/public interaction, nothing is going to get us to a point of zero deaths.

Collateral Damage, right?
And what I mean by that, is not in the same way the military means it where masses of innocents and guilty are killed by a big bomb.
No, this is worse where individual innocents are killed and by policy we should sweep this under the rug if I understand you correctly.

The man is a sad excuse of an officer.

He should be given the death sentence.

a reply to: jacobe001

No, this is worse where individual innocents are killed and by policy we should sweep this under the rug if I understand you correctly.

K well now we've reached the point in the discussion where you're not only ignoring my repeated comments about learning from incidents like this one but have now resorted to flat-out making things up and claiming that's what I said.

That being the case, I'm gonna go ahead and stop interacting with you. I'm happy to defend things I've actually said, but I'm not going to be baited into trying to defend things other people are making up and attributing to me.

Toodles.

a reply to: notsure1

You cant kill some one because he might have a fu$$$n gun. You dont shoot a guy who sobbing begging for his life and is absolutely no threat to anyone.

Im tired of the stupid ass he might have done something defense. When he 1st appeared in the hall he dropped straight to the floor and started begging . He was an obvious non threat.

How can you jackasses justify killing someone because he MIGHT have had a gun. He did not have a gun.

I disagree, people with bad intent are capable of all kinds of Hollywood to get in close and take a slice of yer neck. I actually agree that the shooting was a justified shoot based on his hands, and I did not argue against that.

My beef was the sick demand to have him crawl to them playing twister with his feet and not expect him to fall on his face in a mildly intoxicated state. I bet he would have been shot if he fell for sudden movements that were threatening or other nonsense.

There were nearly half a dozen armed men aiming at him. A single one could have moved into to clear the corner with him on the floor sprawled out and the second one behind him could have cuffed him.

At least he got fired. I think the FBI should watch to see if he tries to make contacts with skinheads or something. He may try to sell his experience to the highest bidder.

a reply to: Shamrock6

This video really upsets me but I'm making an effort here to understand why this happened rather than going with my visceral emotional response which is to rant about summary execution. Now as I recall, they were responding to a call about a man with a rifle so I understand that probably ratchets up things significantly.

The commands were confusing af. To me, looking at this video, those two factors are what set this up to end the way it did. The cop was responding to what he thought was a man with a gun and his commands were extremely confusing.

Why not have him drop all the way down on the ground in the first place? Or have him walk with his hands up in the air or basically anything but alternating between screaming to put his hands straight up and then telling him to crawl? I'm guessing it's the proximity to the room door and the fact that they couldn't see it?

There were at least two officers there. Couldn't they have had him lay flat and advanced on him with one covering the hallway and the other covering the man on the ground?

a reply to: notsure1

I'm so pissed off about this I can't even see straight.

The pure EVIL and SADISM exhibited by this 'PIG' is unbelievable!

Really? REALLY?

'You put your hands down again I'm going to shoot you'...

'Now, crawl to me'...

WHO IN THE GREAT BLUE *F* CAN CRAWL IF NOT ON ALL FOURS!

And NO - this poor man did NOT reach for his 'waistband'... Even if he did he was probably trying to pull up his pants filled with shat!

This poor victim/man - He was TERRIFIED!

And this *F'ing* pitiful excuse for a human being Cop SLAUGHTERED HIM!

PERIOD!

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: face23785

The lesson here is, if you can't be relied upon to never shoot an unarmed man no matter what he is up to, you probably should not be permitted to carry a gun as part of your profession. If you are more willing to kill an innocent, than risk getting shot to protect one, maybe enforcement of the law and public service are not for you?

Oh ok, because if you were the cop your sixth sense would have told you the guy was 100% for certain unarmed. And I suppose if you were the cop in the video I posted, you could've just shot the guy while he was walking away from you, since your preternatural senses would've told you the guy had a gun and was about to shoot you?

Yeah, come back to real life please.

I can see why the cops shot him. The guy reached toward his back waist. That’s where many people keep their firearm. When he reached back there (probably to pull his shorts up after being dragged off of him from crawling) they feared he was reaching for a firearm so they shot him. Key word ‘feared’.

The officer let his fear control him. And when you let your emotions control you, you are no longer in control of the situation. That officer in my opinion is incompetent. And his incompetence costed a father of two little girls and the soul provider of his family his life.

What ever happened to having the suspect slowly lift his shirt and then turn around slowly facing away showing his bare waist to make sure he didn’t have a weapon in his waist. Then instruct the suspect to always move slowly and keep facing away and put his hands interlocking on the back of his head and slowly walk backwards toward the officers. Once there one officer can cuff while the others cover. Done.

I think this video shows incompetence and poor training. As far as punishment for the officer (officers?) that shot him I say absolutely. What that punishment should be I couldn’t say but most definitely something.

We need to hold cops to a higher standard than this 'split second' nonsense. They get trained to believe that everyone is going to kill them and they act as such.

With 3 weeks left in the year 917 people have been killed by police. Of that number, 61 were unarmed.

Number of police killed: 59

You know this thing is so jarring to me…
Every year I give 25 bucks to a police charity. You know for that little bull sh__ thing you hang on your car window. I’ve got the envelope right on my desk. I CANT SEND EM A DIME NOW.

Maybe I'll change later but for now, I cant do it.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
What I don't understand is, why they were arresting him in the first place?

Aren't you allowed to buy, possess and carry a gun in Arizonia without even being licensed?

Is that how it works in the land of the free? The cops are just allowed to roll up on ya and start barking orders when they don't even have any evidence that you've actually done anything legal.

There were reports he was pointing a rifle out his window. You're ok with that?

Only, that didn't happen.

He wasn't armed. He was completely, absolutely innocent of any crime.

He did not harm or threaten to harm anyone AT ALL.

He did nothing at all wrong, yet he was callously killed by heavily armed and armored men while crawling on the floor, crying and begging for his life.

You're ok with that?

a reply to: notsure1

Why on earth didn't he have the guy turn and face the wall... put his hands up on the wall, and then scootch back holding himself up against the wall? At least the kid woulda had a chance.

Words cannot say for the loss of your friend.

That is state murder.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
The cop was responding to what he thought was a man with a gun and his commands were extremely confusing.

The problem with that is guns are legal and no one was committing a crime. Just a guy doing his job at his work place. I'm not sure what would elevate a cop to have a full auto rifle and acting like he has a bank robber in front of him.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
I think this video shows incompetence and poor training. As far as punishment for the officer (officers?) that shot him I say absolutely. What that punishment should be I couldn’t say but most definitely something.

Take any job where total recklessness incompetence kills someone and they are going to jail, well except for cops...

Guys like this are why cops get shot.