It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 17
83
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

I agree with you entirely. The problem is that the guy in the video did exactly what the cop told him to do and he got shot for it. He was scared to death, crying, on his knees, repeatedly threatened, told if his hands dropped for any reason he would die, and then told to crawl across the floor. Exactly how do you crawl with your hands straight up in the air? The answer is: you cant. He had to lower his hands to crawl and he died for it.




posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

It is very unfortunate what happened to this man and his family.

However, I take issue with multiple points of your post. First, did you watch the video of the shooting? The officer shoots the man after the man moves his right hand to his right waist in a motion that looks as if he is reaching for something. This is after the officer warned him to keep his hands forward.

I'm not arguing in favor of what the officer did, however, I am going to argue that the officer did in fact instruct him to not move his hands anywhere other than down. The man clearly moves his right hand to his right side in a very odd movement that could be construed as him reaching for a weapon.

Secondly the man who was killed is white and has absolutely nothing to do with the idiot NFL players disrespecting their national anthem. In case you haven't been paying attention the idiot NFL players are "protesting" their incorrectly and misperceived treatment of blacks by police. NOT WHITE PEOPLE. Let me repeat...they are not "protesting" the killing of whites by white police officers.

Thirdly...if you are going to allow a single video to paint the picture of every police in the United States as being representative of how ALL POLICE act then you are being willfully ignorant. And by me saying that I am not saying the officer acted improperly. He did warn the guy multiple times and the guy did in fact move his right hand to the right side of his body which could have been interpreted as him going for a weapon.

As an aside let me ask you this. If you were confronted by a man who was threatening your family and you had a gun to defend yourself and the man made a motion you interpreted as him going for a weapon would you wait to see what he was doing knowing it could potentially harm or kill you or your family or would you shoot him first?



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: dan121212

He was itching get a kill under his belt, and add a notch next to the "you're f#cked" inscribed on his weapon..a real POS.
To me, he looks like the nerd who got bullied in school and joined to police to get some back.



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 10:56 PM
link   
This guy did not deserve to die. The situation is bad all around. The biggest issue is the guy reached back and then the shots occurred. Yes in hindsight it was nothing but likely trying to pull his pants up but the officer has no way of knowing if the guy has a gun in his waistband. The crawling was likely used to get him away from his room where he knew there was other occupants.

We are coming off the Las Vegas shooting so no doubt that the cop was already on edge. I just wonder why there wasn't more backup to assist in a situation like this. Maybe from behind to check on the room and then apprehend the suspect.



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785
It is an outdated rule and procedure if that is the case. Both those people were flat on there face, and if they thought there would be somebody in the next hallway, they need to take that vantage point. If there really was somebody just waiting to shoot those cops in the hallway. He could have done so at will, while they were busy giving orders just as any other time.

So ya, since it looked like there were two cops, should have have the two people kneel hands behind back, then one officer covers, the other goes cuffs the closest one, searches her then order them to the wall or something, then move forward and cuff's and restrains the other guy, moves them to one spot, then advance to the wall and checks around the corners, all while the other guy covers him while keeping his gun on the two perps, giving plenty of time to check around the corner.

But I suppose it is less prone to risk, for the cops, to have them crawl to you. The way I said above does leaves you open if there is actually somebody behind the corners willing to do harm or kill. But if there isn't, I suppose it would turn into a tense weird situation, especially if you have a scared out of his mind civilian, who cant seem to keep his legs crossed and crawl forward at the same time, and really really bad at listening. And seeing they found no gun on him, well, maybe he did have a wedge and instinctively reached for it while trying to crawl on the ground.

If that is the case, boy is that seriously some bad timing, they should put that on his grave, died, because he did not listen to well, and had a serious wedge, RIP Daniel Shaver.

But to be fair to this whole misbegotten ordeal, the cop should have not said crawl to me, crawling implies he has to put his hands back down, when they clearly must be up at all times.

The whole set of instructions was contradicting. He should have said, go up to your knees with hands in the air, now cross your legs, now shuffle on your knees up to me. Saying, cross your legs get to your knees, and keep your hands up at all time but crawl towards me, those are some contradictory rules and instructions to be interpreted. And in the right order, because if done in the wrong order, well, is likely to get you shot.

I think why the girl didn't get shot is because she just followed the fastest interpretation of all that, basically she did not try to follow those orders but just went with it whatever made sense in that situation, and she did not crawl, she kept her hands high and shuffled forward clearly disobeying the order of crawling forward, lucky she did not get shot with her shuffling forward.

While the guy, probably had to think and confused himself in the procedure. They should add that on his grave, died because of a lexicon interpretation confusion of words, basically he had a brain fart in that tense moment. To one person crawl means shuffle on your knees, to another it means, hands on the ground like a dog type of crawling. Hey lucky there was not another guy who did not take "crawl" to mean flop to your belly and crawl to me. That sudden movement from knees with hands in the air to flopping down to your belly, is so like dropping down while trying to reach for a gun and would likely get them shot as well. Language, and its interpretation in any given movement, it differs. And now as we can see, it is even a life and death situation.

Which case that would be 90% of the population if they were in the same spot, most people don't do well when they have a gun pointed at them are in a high tense situation. They would all suddenly get itchy scratchy back syndrome just from the pressure, and end up getting shot.

So ya I dont know dude, who is right or wrong, bad policy on such procedures, perhaps following those procedures is likely to see a lot of dead civilians if they ever get into such a situation, none of them would be able to resist the urge to move there hands if told not to move there hands. I suppose the police is trying to take a zero no nonsense kind of policy, and have a zero dont put yourself in harms way both real or perceived type of situation for cops.

How convenient, to take no risks. Dam lazy cops, isn't that what we pay them for, to take a risk now and then.

But hey, somebody is taking a risk if there not the ones taking a risk to themselves. Oh yes, this whole crawl to me on your knees with your legs crossed, sure is a good way to not risk yourself into being shot by anybody that might or might not be in the corners of hallways. But it looks like it will up the civilians with itchy hands to end up get shot.

Can you imagine this scenario, some people get spotted in a car, next to a store and bank, one is waving a gun around, one guy in the back is spotted waving a gun around in the car. Somebody some passerby, see it, and calls it in. Hello 911, saw some shady people next to best buy waving a gun around in there car come quick, I am at the corner of 5th and Lewis. Next to the Safeway bank, cops show up some minutes latter. They pull in sirens blazing, go to the car guns pointing, knock on the window after a few gun pointing exchanges, ask what and ask the driver to give them his ID. The driver then process to reach in his back pocket because he or she forgot it there when they got in the car. Oh noz, he or she has a gun, rat tat tat. Dead because of bad listening skills.

Latter it turns out it was just a bb riffle, and they bought it from next few blocks away and were just looking at there new toy while waiting for somebody to come out the Safeway because there shift was about over and needed a ride home...zing, does it sound like a far off make believe situation? Well depends I suppose. But if a guy can get shot in a hotel hallway, because he was playing around with a his bb gun. Well?

edit on 11pmSaturdaypm092017f6pmSat, 09 Dec 2017 23:19:30 -0600 by galadofwarthethird because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

Totally devastating.

I have a catch 22 view of cops, a necessary evil if you will. But this situation is totally unfounded.

But this isn't the real problem, the problem are many. One issue is property confiscation. Once an authority can confiscate property, then the general population will eventually start to turn against the law.

Another issue is the actual negative attitude the population has with authority because of that. It becomes a vicious cycle.

The real answer to these tragedy is to STOP ELECTING PUBLIC OFFICIALS THAT ENACT BAD LAW. If police don't have bad law to ENFORCE then police can return to protecting citizens and stop screwing over their civilians.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
And I don’t want to hear the usual…
F___ THE COPS. I AINT KISSING NO COPS ASS. I HAVE RIGHTS.

That kind of attitude can get you killed like this poor young man.

Sorry Willtell, but there was no way that young father of two was not gonna die that day, he was sobbing, begging ,freakin crawling, squirming like a worm, because Mr sadistic cop demanded it.
Perhaps to maintain whatever sliver of dignity he had left by an attempt to pull up his shorts, he dies ignobly.

edit on 10-12-2017 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:52 AM
link   
The call was for a man with a gun waving it around at a hotel.

Under almost all state laws a pellet gun with a caliber of .177 is classified as a firearm. .177 is a close equivalent to a .22 caliber. States also have laws that deal with gas guns IE a weapon where the projectile is discharged due to a gas reaction. In both cases they are classified as such because the object it discharges is done with such force that it could cause serious physical harm or death.

Second the guy was told numerous times what to do and was told numerous times what would occur if he did not comply. He was not shot because he crawled towards the officer. He was shot because during that movement he moved his hand(s) to his waistband. That action is what caused the officer to fire.

He was clearly told to keep his hands where they could be seen.

Again -
Hindsight is 20/20 and can NOT be used to review an officers use of force. The standard is what did the officer perceive as a threat at the time force was used. It is up to the officer to justify his actions and its up to the prosecuting attorney or grand jury to review that justification and decide if the shoot was good or bad.

The fact the guy did not have a weapon was only discovered after the fact.

It is easy to read the media report, the police report and what witnesses say however you must remember none of that information is available to the officers at the time of the incident. The fact this occurred in a hotel adds to the problem in that innocent civilians are a few footsteps away from the danger in question. The guy with the pellet gun obviously behaved in such a manner that it caught the attention of the people who called it in. The actions of the suspect were enough for the bystanders to think something was not right and that people could be / are in danger.

Being on these forums and passing judgement while never being exposed / placed into that type of situation is problematic to say the least.

Ask yourself -
If you were the officer would you risk the possibility of not going home to your family at the end of the night by assuming the suspect wont kill you?



A very small number of officers will discharge their duty weapons in the course of their careers (animals etc). An even smaller number of those who do discharge their weapons will be in a situation where its being discharged against another human being. I have been lucky falling into the first group and never moving into the second group of having to kill another human.

Per SCOTUS / STATE case law / Departmental policies -
* - Law Enforcement is granted the unique privilege of being allowed to escalate force (objectively reasonable) in an effort to overcome resistance, up to and including deadly force.
* - Law Enforcement is required to use the least amount of force necessary to overcome that resistance.
* - Law Enforcement is required to deescalate the situation as safely and as quickly as possible.
* - Law Enforcement is not required to start out at the very bottom of the use of force continuum / subject resistance control continuum. They can enter the continuum at any point based on totality of circumstances (objectively reasonable).
* - Law Enforcement is required to make split second life or death decisions which is why SCOTUS does not allow the use of 20/20 hindsight in reviewing use of force. Use of force is still reviewed and evaluated but it is viewed from the officers perspective, totality of circumstances and whats objectively reasonable.
* - Law Enforcement is held to a higher standard than civilians, especially in use of force and EVOC.
* - What about Tasers? Some departments only allow a taser to be used only if a second officer is present and capable of deploying deadly force. Some departments will not allow a taser to be used in a deadly force encounter.


Every time law enforcement takes an action that ends the life of another person it is in fact classified as a homicide by the ME / Coroner (this includes convicted felons on death row who are executed by the state). The sub-classification is either justified or not justified. That determination is made by the investigation outcome.

While it is always a bad day when an officer must take another persons life trying to judge that officer and his / her actions without knowing what is required by law, by policy, by totality of circumstances (objectively reasonable) sets the person up for failure as they are only seeing the situation from one angle that is murky at best.

As always just my 2 cents...


** GRAPHIC - VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED LINKS BELOW - SPLIT SECOND DECISIONS DEADLY CONSEQUENCES**

* - www.youtube.com...
* - www.youtube.com...
* - www.youtube.com...
* - www.youtube.com...
* - www.youtube.com...

** GRAPHIC - VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED LINKS ABOVE - SPLIT SECOND DECISIONS DEADLY CONSEQUENCES**



Real or fake?


Armed or unarmed?


Hollywood verse Reality -

edit on 10-12-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-12-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: notsure1




Mod Note: GoFund Me link removed. Solicitations are NOT allowed on ATS as per the ATS Terms and Condition


Really sometimes ATS should have some spine..




posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Think you would be singing a different tune if that was someone you loved. The man was not a threat in that position. He would not have the time to produce a gun a fire it. He had a gun aimed at him.

No excuse

This was murder.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

You cant claim he was not a threat. At the time he was considered armed.

You did not know he was unarmed until the media reported it - after the fact.

Also I am not giving you / making an excuse. I am giving you the facts.
edit on 10-12-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: purplemer

You cant claim he was not a threat. At the time he was considered armed.

You did not know he was unarmed until the media reported it - after the fact.

Also I am not giving you / making an excuse. I am giving you the facts.



You think the police should have the right to execute any reported threat. Get over yourself. If you support state murder you are no better.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

EF that, the guy wept and begged.

He would have done anything but the impossible. Apparently, that is what they asked him to do, to feel safe themselves.

Catch 22.


edit on 10-12-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 03:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: purplemer

You cant claim he was not a threat. At the time he was considered armed.

You did not know he was unarmed until the media reported it - after the fact.

Also I am not giving you / making an excuse. I am giving you the facts.


Then answer me a question, why was he not checked for weapons while on the ground and not moving? The cop already knew that this guy was messing up, begging not to be shot, crying and possibly intoxicated. Why make him cross his legs, put up his arms and crawl and tell him that if falls he better fall on his face? Under these circumstances I know alot of people who would have freaked being told they were gonna be shot with any wrong move.Why have this dance and allow a cop with this type of attitude and You're fuc@ked inscripted on his gun, to gun down a man who has trouble with instructions under extreme pressure. What point in this video did you think this guy crying, begging for his life is gonna go for a gun?



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: purplemer

You cant claim he was not a threat. At the time he was considered armed.

You did not know he was unarmed until the media reported it - after the fact.

Also I am not giving you / making an excuse. I am giving you the facts.



You think the police should have the right to execute any reported threat. Get over yourself. If you support state murder you are no better.


No I think the police have a right to be cautious and to defend themselves from a person considered to be armed when that person consistently fails to follow verbal commands.

It's not murder so while im "getting over myself" you can take the time to learn the law instead of responding in ignorance.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra

EF that, the guy wept and begged.

He would have done anything but the impossible. Apparently, that is what they asked him to do, to feel safe themselves.

Catch 22.



It is not a catch 22. How hard is it to follow directions to not move your hands?



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yet again you defend the indefensible.
Can I ask what needs to be required for you to admit that a police officer made a massive error and must be held accountable? Because you keep defending people who have overreacted to threats that don't exist.
Once again, you make me afraid to go to the USA. You really do, I am not exaggerating this, you make me doubt the judgement of US law enforcement officers.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: keenmachine

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: purplemer

You cant claim he was not a threat. At the time he was considered armed.

You did not know he was unarmed until the media reported it - after the fact.

Also I am not giving you / making an excuse. I am giving you the facts.


Then answer me a question, why was he not checked for weapons while on the ground and not moving? The cop already knew that this guy was messing up, begging not to be shot, crying and possibly intoxicated. Why make him cross his legs, put up his arms and crawl and tell him that if falls he better fall on his face? Under these circumstances I know alot of people who would have freaked being told they were gonna be shot with any wrong move.Why have this dance and allow a cop with this type of attitude and You're fuc@ked inscripted on his gun, to gun down a man who has trouble with instructions under extreme pressure. What point in this video did you think this guy crying, begging for his life is gonna go for a gun?


That is what they were leading up to when the guy opted to move his hands back down towards his waistband. The cop also kept telling him over and over what to do and what not to do. The guy opted to ignore that and make a move that was a direct threat.

Why is it so hard to follow directions and not move your hands?

When it comes to a call where a firearm is involved and not immediately located you bet your ass the use of deadly force moves towards the front of the line with the people you are dealing with.

Tell me - how many warnings should a person get before they are perceived as a deadly threat?

In case you are unaware a person who is incapable of following instructions can still be armed and can still kill a person.

Crying and begging for his life does not mean he is not going to try and kill the cops or anyone else who might stumble along.

Unless your going for the argument that suspects never lie to the police and would never to anything to harm them.

Yes - I have seen suspects act like a victim in an effort to draw the officer into a false sense of security in an effort to get their guard down before attacking them with the intent to kill them.

You guys are certainly entitled to your opinion in this case however the law, the prosecuting attorney and a grand jury dont agree with your views on this one.
edit on 10-12-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yet again you defend the indefensible.
Can I ask what needs to be required for you to admit that a police officer made a massive error and must be held accountable? Because you keep defending people who have overreacted to threats that don't exist.
Once again, you make me afraid to go to the USA. You really do, I am not exaggerating this, you make me doubt the judgement of US law enforcement officers.


No I am explaining the law. The part of this scenario that people dont seem to grasp. I am explaining case law that governs their actions because people dont seem to grasp that either.

It is simple - dont move your hands towards your waistband when you are constantly being told not to while having a gun pointed at you while being told what type of actions would result in deadly force.

I dont expect some people to understand or even care about the other side. All I can say is ignorance is a choice and willful ignorance is a problem.

As for being afraid quit with the drama. 10's of thousands of law enforcement officers in the US have shifts where no force / deadly force is used. Basing your view off one incident is no better than me saying anyone who is not a police officer is an armed criminal out t kill cops because of one encounter in one state involving one agency.



edit on 10-12-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:50 AM
link   

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?


Rubbish. Your post relegates the life of a police officer to nothing. Did you even bother to watch the video in the post above yours. No police officer should be expected to take unnecessary risks with their own lives. The victim in the case on this thread reached behind his back and was then shot. In the situation that was unfolding, that is fully justified. The police officer could not be expected to know he had no gun.



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join