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: 21
84
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: [post=22942673]UKTruth[/post
That is not the reason he was fired.
His crappy attitude escalated a situation...


Those two sentences are conflicting and mutually exclusive.

He was fired for how he handled that scenario, as per the Mesa Chief of Police. The inscription was also a factor but not the sole factor.


Disagree at about the points being mutually exclusive - as I am talking specifically about his decision to shoot. That was correct.
More broadly I agree with you.




posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
That was correct.


I disagree. It was a near inevitable escalation from his poor and confusing tactics.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

the suspect should have kept his hands where the police could see them. the officer stated if the suspect moved his hands to the small of his back he was going to open fire. the suspect moved his hands to the small of his back, the police officer shot.

not murder.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
That was correct.


I disagree. It was a near inevitable escalation from his poor and confusing tactics.


So what would you have him do at that moment?
Should he say to himself 'Hey, I've been a bit of a douche to this guy up to this point, so should I risk my life now to give him the benefit of the doubt?".

At that precise moment, what should he have done?



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
At that precise moment, what should he have done?


Gave clear, concise and consistent instructions. Which they didn't, so a man ends up dead needlessly.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
At that precise moment, what should he have done?


Gave clear, concise and consistent instructions. Which they didn't, so a man ends up dead needlessly.


Assume we agree that up to the moment of the shooting it was actually the cop that had escalated it to that point.
Draw a line under that as we agree and tell me what he should have done at the moment he had to make a decision to shoot or not.
edit on 10/12/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

Draw a line under that as we agree and tell me what he should have done at the moment of the shooting.


Put five in his coconut.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't know if it was proven otherwise but wasn't the one giving bad instructions the Sgt. while Brailsford was the shooter?



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth

Draw a line under that as we agree and tell me what he should have done at the moment of the shooting.


Put five in his coconut.


Yup.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't know if it was proven otherwise but wasn't the one giving bad instructions the Sgt. while Brailsford was the shooter?


I heard that too. Not sure though.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Catch_a_Fire
Well I've watched.... and rewatched that video a couple of times now, I've even waited a while to comment because I was so riled up after watching it.

No matter how much I put myself in the position of that LEO..... at that moment..... I cannot for the life of me justify the actions carried out. A big part of good police training is the efficiency of identifying a threat.......... within 5 seconds of that couple turning that corner .... I (as well as many others here) would not have deemed them a threat that warrants those actions carried out....... why did he?...... after thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours training why did he ??..... it's not normal. The victim was not a threat.



Have you watched the uncensored video? If not then you need too and pay specific attention to the 4:21 mark just before the officer fires.

First off you need to be very real with yourself. It is impossible for you to place yourself in the LEO's position at that moment unless you yourself have been in a similar situation. I've personally served in multiple combat tours while in the military. Been in plenty of situations where entering a room and making a split second determination on friendly vs enemy and trust me regardless of the amount of training and real world scenarios it is NEVER easy making a split second decision to fire or not. With that being said had I been the LEO in this situation, I, too, would have fired.

Here is why.

Look at the 4:21 mark. The LEO is covering the corner where the subject exited the hotel room. You can see he has his weapon trained on the corner in the event someone comes around the corner with a weapon. He does not know if anyone is just around the corner. The LEO sees the subject reaching to his right side. Argue it all you want but reaching to his right side is indicative of reaching for a weapon. Regardless if the man had a weapon or not...his MOVEMENT is what is the subject here.

You can see the officer's finger OFF the trigger UNTIL he sees the subject reaching for his right side at which point he fires 5 rounds.

Remove the emotion you feel from what you have witnessed and look at the situation objectively. Yes, it is VERY unfortunate that man lost his life. 2 little girls and a wife no longer have their father and husband. That is terrible. But that LEO did exactly what he was trained to do. He gave Shave a very clear warning of what would happen if he did not keep his hands visible and he also asked Shaver if either of them were drunk and asked if they both understood what the LEO was telling them.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Outlier13
Look at the 4:21 mark.


In all your experience did it ever take 4:21 minutes to figure out "friendly vs enemy".

Let's look at this objectively. The police, of which there were 6 in the hall, were on their way to the room. The couple turning the corner surprised them as well. Wonder how that affected the guy giving the orders.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I understand what you are saying but until the subject is in cuffs and the "threat" is neutralized there are no certainties. I genuinely feel for Shaver's family. But the guy did a really stupid thing. Really stupid. I know from experience that LEO's eyes and weapons sight was trained on that corner as mine would be too. Out of the peripheral of the LEO's eye he sees Shaver make an undeniable move that is 100% indicative of someone reaching for a weapon. Within in a split second the LEO has to sweep his weapon from covering a corner, disengaging his safety, putting his finger on the trigger, AND make the instant decision to fire.

There have been plenty of scenarios where supposedly nice people walk right up to police and put a bullet in their head. Point being that everyone is a threat until they are not.

It's real easy for us to pass judgement on this LEO based on a brief and incomplete video, a d-bag photo of him posted looking like some wanna be or a pogue, having a really stupid saying imprinted on his weapon, etc. But that is the wrong way to look at this. The situation was unfortunate but as I said above. Everyone is a threat until they are not.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13

If the Sgt was the one giving the instructions then all the D-baggery of the shooter means nothing, if one is questioning the instructions or the way the situation was handled.

Sure, it is easy from the armchair but one can still point out the mistakes. It doesn't make the observations invalid.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13

I completely agree with your questioning of my opinion, that's what we're here for.... after all.

My point is, that particular situation should not have gone that far, it's clear there's no threat once the guy is compliant and hits the floor. The officers were clearly dealing with a very shocked/scared young American couple. They should of simply been cuffed and cleared not dragged through the mill.
If this was someone in a standoff with police in that corridor and his hand went to a pocket or to reach behind then yes I would agree with the response ..... but this is not and never was that situation ..... this was a young lad on his hands and knees crawling, crying in fear .... clearly showing his confusion and fear over unclear commands.

A little bit of human intuition goes a long way.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001

you would be wrong.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Cornczech

Comply... simple as that.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: keenmachine

Which cop? The one with the AR-15 or his Sergeant, who fired first?

Or did you not know?
edit on 10-12-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: KansasGirl
I apologize if this has been brought up in the thread and I missed it, but can law enforcement types chime in on this: why did the officer shoot five times? Is there a reason he couldn't just take one shot at him to disable him instead of pumping 5 shots at once into the guy?


Because law enforcement is not trained to shoot to kill but instead shoot to stop the threat. Wounding shots are prohibited by law / supreme court ruling. The use of a firearm is defined as deadly force. Using a firearm to "disable" a person means they are not considered a deadly threat, meaning the use of a firearm would not be justified.

A few pages back I made a post with youtube links in it. The last one, Hollywood verse reality, addresses the very question and then some that you asked. I recommend if you are curious about that area.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: UKTruth




At what point would the officer be justified in shooting.. when a gun had been drawn and the bullet on the way towards him??? Every time something like this happens procedures are in place to investigate and determine whether the officer used deadly force in a manner appropriate to the statutes they must abide by. In this case, the officer followed the law. The ONLY person to blame for the victims' death is the victim himself, not the state or the officer.


Thats absurd...

how can you ask such a leading question. There was no gun to be drawn. The man is on the floor you can see his hand and you have a gun drawn.. If there is no evidence to shoot. you should not



and again you did not know he was unarmed until after the incident when the media reported on it. Your desperate attempt to hide that fact is disturbing to say the least.



new topics




 
84
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join