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

a reply to: Cornczech

The legal term is passive resistance. Best example are the people who protest and when police move in to make an arrest the people "go limp".

a reply to: keenmachine


again..more hindsight speculation.

We all know he should have walked up when the guy was on the floor to search for weapons, but he didn't.

The guy reached around his side and the cop thought he was about to draw a weapon so he shot. That's what they do, especially when he said "Don't do it again or I will shoot". and he did it again.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: UKTruth

I've watched the video several times and it gets harder to watch every time. He seems to try and pull his trousers up, but the moment he was shot by a panicking imbecile his hand was empty and on the floor. No threat.

Just no.
Here is the moment that the officer pulled the trigger.
He had no option.
He is just metres away from a man who could be about to pull out a gun and shoot him dead.

The other thing non law enforcement / non military people dont understand is the location this occurred at. A narrow hallway can be extremely deadly for both, law enforcement and suspects. There is no where to take cover or room to maneuver. It is a reason you will see law enforcement "stack single file" in those situations.

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.

EXACTLY....this is what people don't understand.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: purplemer

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

Yes we can. He was certainly not a threat when he was laying on the ground face down with his arms out in front of him. If they had moved in and arrested him right there there is no way he could have produced a weapon and fired it before they could react. Instead, they wasted time and made things more complicated and unstable by screaming at him more and ordering him to move into a different position. Why?

Plain and simple. They confused the guy and scared the crap out of him by screaming all kinds of conflicting commands at him (all while threatening to shoot him). It really just seemed like they were waiting for him to make one wrong move instead of moving in and arresting him at the first opportunity.

The cop told him to lay face down on the ground with his arms in front of him and he did that. It could have ended right there with no one getting killed. He was as helpless in that position as a human being can get without being physically restrained.

While I completely understand that it's totally possible that he could have been armed, he could not have possibly had a weapon in his empty hands that were out in front of him and fully visible at that point. He did put his hands behind him or something later on but that was after the cops freaked him out more than necessary and kept telling him to move into different positions.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: purplemer

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

Yes we can. He was certainly not a threat when he was laying on the ground face down with his arms out in front of him. If they had moved in and arrested him right there there is no way he could have produced a weapon and fired it before they could react.

Plain and simple. They confused the guy and scared the crap out of him by screaming all kinds of conflicting commands at him (all while threatening to shoot him). It really just seemed like they were waiting for him to make one wrong move instead of moving in and arresting him at the first opportunity.

The cop told him to lay face down on the ground with his arms in front of him and he did that. It could have ended right there with no one getting killed. He was as helpless in that position as a human being can get without being physically restrained.

While I completely understand that it's totally possible that he could have been armed, he could not have possibly had a weapon in his empty hands that were out in front of him and fully visible at that point. He did put his hands behind him or something later on but that was after the cops freaked him out more than necessary and kept telling him to move into different positions.

He told the guy to not put his hands behind him again or he will shoot. he put his hand behind his back so he shot. Tell me how that is confusing.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
In other words, the officer did his job...

If he did his job so well why does he no longer have that job?

Please explain to us why he was fired.

If you cant answer that question then you really need t stop assuming it was because of this incident.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra

You mean ignore human reflexes like putting your hands out if falling or reaching for falling pants.

Pretty hard.

Catch 22.

and until you are in similar situation your opinion lacks context and understanding of the situation.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Please explain to us why he was fired.

I posted the Mesa Chief of Police's comments earlier.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

He was fired after the incident however it does not say why he was fired.

Also you missed (or ignored) the part where the decision to terminate was made before any legal actions were completed which is a no no. My guess would be that action was a catalyst for the judges rulings on restricting what could be released to and by the media in this case.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
He was fired after the incident however it does not say why he was fired.

It was clear that he was termed after 'reviewing the incident'.

a reply to: Xcathdra

That is a weak excuse for not being objective about what happened.

originally posted by: jidnum

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: purplemer

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

Yes we can. He was certainly not a threat when he was laying on the ground face down with his arms out in front of him. If they had moved in and arrested him right there there is no way he could have produced a weapon and fired it before they could react.

Plain and simple. They confused the guy and scared the crap out of him by screaming all kinds of conflicting commands at him (all while threatening to shoot him). It really just seemed like they were waiting for him to make one wrong move instead of moving in and arresting him at the first opportunity.

The cop told him to lay face down on the ground with his arms in front of him and he did that. It could have ended right there with no one getting killed. He was as helpless in that position as a human being can get without being physically restrained.

While I completely understand that it's totally possible that he could have been armed, he could not have possibly had a weapon in his empty hands that were out in front of him and fully visible at that point. He did put his hands behind him or something later on but that was after the cops freaked him out more than necessary and kept telling him to move into different positions.

He told the guy to not put his hands behind him again or he will shoot. he put his hand behind his back so he shot. Tell me how that is confusing.

You conveniently skipped the part where they could have easily arrested him without incident well before any of that happened and wasted at least one opportunity to do so. There was no reason he needed to be told to move again once he was on the ground with his hands in plain sight like that.

They told him to get on the ground and not to move. Then they told him to move after he did exactly what they asked him to do. That's how things get confusing.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Please explain to us why he was fired.

I posted the Mesa Chief of Police's comments earlier.

Yes and nowhere does it say he was fired for that incident. It says he was fired following that incident but does not give specifics.

The method you are using is called "a leap of logic" and its dangerous and misleading.

Another example is walking into a crime scene and seeing cigarettes put out in an ashtray and assuming the person who lived in the residence was a smoker.

The other term is"Post Hoc, Ergo, Propter Hoc" or "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The method you are using is called "a leap of logic" and its dangerous and misleading.

And I'm totally cool with it. In my estimation the math works.

He shot someone to death and was fired shortly thereafter. I don't think he was pinching toner from the station office closet.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

The excuse was that he was in front of the door and they feared that someone might come out shooting.

Someone already posted that they should have asked him to stand, hands in the air turn around and walk backwards towards them to get him away from the door. Seems to be SOP. Why that wasn't done here is anyone's guess.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

No really you cant.

The call was for a person waiving a gun around in a Hotel.

It was not until AFTER the fact that the person had no weapons on him.

People in this thread are ignoring the fact that they also did not know if the guy was armed until the media told you.

At the time of this incident a firearm was involved in the call. At the time of this incident it was occurring in a hotel.

The weapons were in fact located in the guys room. Also if the commands were so confusing why was the guys girlfriend able to follow them and be safely taken into custody?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So using your same slanted logic had Shaver not been a family man and were instead a serial child molester then you would be on the LEO's side in this matter.

Ok....

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Also if the commands were so confusing why was the guys girlfriend able to follow them and be safely taken into custody?

Her shorts didn't slip.

originally posted by: Outlier13
So using your same slanted logic had Shaver not been a family man and were instead a serial child molester then you would be on the LEO's side in this matter.

No. I think the guy escalated the situation with his asshole-ish behavior and inconsistent and confusing commands.