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

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

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.

Sigh....hindsight.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra

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

No it is a very valid point. People who arent trained, who are not law enforcement and who have never pointed a weapon at someone, let alone pulling the trigger all the while dealing with a situation involving firearms by the suspect.

Ignoring those facts places you in the exact same category you just accused me of being in.

I have been involved in those very same situations and as I said earlier thank God I never had to discharge my weapon at another human being.

So my position comes from my training and my experience.

Where does yours come from (and that is a serious question and not meant to be condescending). If you have never been in a similar situation then where do you get the ability to second guess the action?

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

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.

There absolutely is given the situation and location this occurred in.

Also check your facts. They also told the guy to keep his hands where they could be seen and any movements contrary would result in deadly force.

The suspect moved his hand to his waistband.


Why are you ignoring those facts?

a reply to: Xcathdra

What category did I accuse you of being in?

I never said I could have handled it better but I don't have to second guess. There is video and we can all see the mistakes, by all the parties.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.

Except it doesnt work. It assumes a fact that is not in evidence.

Since we dont know why he was terminated you cant know it was because of this incident.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Except it doesnt work. It assumes a fact that is not in evidence.

Since we dont know why he was terminated you cant know it was because of this incident.

It works for me.

originally posted by: daskakik

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.

and yet she was able to follow commands and understand them.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Way back in the thread someone pointed out that it was because of the arrest for this very incident so, there you go.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes, so?

He panicked and his shorts slipped. She didn't have that problem and she also had a shorter distance. Maybe the way women's hips are set made it easier for her as well.

He handled the situation correctly and as a good officer yet loses his job. Yeah, I'm buying it.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra

What category did I accuse you of being in?

I never said I could have handled it better but I don't have to second guess. There is video and we can all see the mistakes, by all the parties.

Not being objective.

Video that only became available, along with all the other facts in this case, AFTER the incident. Had it not been for that you would not be in this thread making the argument you are.

Your entire position is based on evidence after the fact. A luxury the officers on scene did not have.

See how that works?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Except it doesnt work. It assumes a fact that is not in evidence.

Since we dont know why he was terminated you cant know it was because of this incident.

It works for me.

Ok...

it doesnt work in the legal realm and since we use that instead of a court of public opinion.. well...

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra

Way back in the thread someone pointed out that it was because of the arrest for this very incident so, there you go.

None of the articles posted define the reason for termination. All it says is he was terminated after this incident.

Feel free to point out in any of the articles the reason he was terminated.

Bad training I think.
Cops should be able to read people and any idiot with a ounce of empathy would know he was no threat.
Thank God I live in the UK I would have been shot 4 or five times by now with cops.

a reply to: Xcathdra

When did I say that we were doing anything but pointing out the mistakes after the fact?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes, so?

He panicked and his shorts slipped. She didn't have that problem and she also had a shorter distance. Maybe the way women's hips are set made it easier for her as well.

and yet we come back to the same question -

Why was she able to comply and he was not.

When told not to do something in this type of situation you do just that - nothing.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It wasn't an article, it was a copy of a doc from the PD.

originally posted by: testingtesting
Bad training I think.
Cops should be able to read people and any idiot with a ounce of empathy would know he was no threat.
Thank God I live in the UK I would have been shot 4 or five times by now with cops.

or lack of knowledge on the law and law enforcement operations by people who think they know better because of their ignorance and unwillingness to look at all factors.

Lack of training - nope he did everything correctly.
Ignorance on the part of the Monday morning quarterbacks - absolutely.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I already answered, his shorts slipped and he instinctively went to pull them up. Why are you ignoring that fact?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra

When did I say that we were doing anything but pointing out the mistakes after the fact?

By trying to use the video to support your position while ignoring the fact that option was not available to the officers.