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

originally posted by: Shamrock6
...a regular person wouldn’t get a phone call from a hotel saying a guy is waving a gun out of his window and be expected to do something about it.

I do. They typically ask me to bring my numbchucks over and deescalate the situation.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Shamrock6
...a regular person wouldn’t get a phone call from a hotel saying a guy is waving a gun out of his window and be expected to do something about it.

I do. They typically ask me to bring my numbchucks over and deescalate the situation.

Well yea, but we all know how Masons don't even have to worry about use of force issues so I mean....

In the video the so called cop,
has him on the floor hands behind his back!
so Why does he not walk up and cuff him???

in sted he tels him to kneel hands in air
"dont drop hands" then tells him to crawl to him?
so he as to drop hands. he is playing a ideot with him.
ANY OF YOU WOULD BE DEAD!!

a reply to: Shamrock6

This question is for you and any other LE folks in This thread. Third time I've posed the question, now.

Why shoot the guy 5 times? Why did he pump 5 bullets into him all at once?

I'm not arguing anything- I really do want to know what the reason is for that.

Another question I have is about the other officers there. One article said that there were 6 of them there. What were the other four doing- or I guess I mean to ask what would those other 4 be normally expected to be doing while all that was going down? We're they just standing behind the yelling cop and the shooting cop, or what?

a reply to: KansasGirl

I must have missed it or forgotten to give you an answer if you directed this at me before now so if I did, apologies. Wasn't intentional.

Law enforcement is trained to shoot until a threat stops being a threat (and before anybody else jumps on the use of the word "threat" as a reference to Shaver, I'm talking about training so stuff it). Real world shooting rarely results in a one hit kill, so multiple shots are taken until the threat is incapacitated. Taking one shot and then checking to see what happens usually means an adversary has time to return fire.

You'd have to go check out the PNAC link that SlapMonkey posted several pages ago for the officers' reports about what each of them were doing at the time of the shooting. I glanced through them briefly, but all I can recall is that at least one of them was back by the elevators, making sure nobody came up that way and another was by a stairwell door, blocking access to the floor from that way. I think at least one of the remaining two was supporting Langley and Blaisford because it sounds like at least one officer is cuffing the female that is not Blaisford or Langley. So yes, that would be normal: controlling access to the area and supporting the officers on point.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: roadgravel
It was not murder in the eyes of 12 people.

The y didn’t see the whole video.

What part of the video did they not see?

originally posted by: buddha
In the video the so called cop,
has him on the floor hands behind his back!
so Why does he not walk up and cuff him???

in sted he tels him to kneel hands in air
"dont drop hands" then tells him to crawl to him?
so he as to drop hands. he is playing a ideot with him.
ANY OF YOU WOULD BE DEAD!!

You hit it right on the head. The sick depraved sadistic cop was playing "I'm a cop" with the poor guy.

May God soon give that punk what he deserves!

a reply to: notsure1

The beginning 10 minutes or so.

I think the full video is 16 or 18 minutes, and the jury was shown the last 6 minutes or so.

originally posted by: KansasGirl
This question is for you and any other LE folks in This thread. Third time I've posed the question, now.

Why shoot the guy 5 times? Why did he pump 5 bullets into him all at once?

I'm not arguing anything- I really do want to know what the reason is for that.

You fire until the threat is no longer a threat. When dealing with the possibility of a firearm being involved even a "wounded" person is still a deadly threat. We cannot shoot to wound. When using deadly force, there is a reason its called deadly.

Ideally law enforcement never wants to be forced to kill someone, especially if they are unarmed (after the fact).

originally posted by: KansasGirl
Another question I have is about the other officers there. One article said that there were 6 of them there. What were the other four doing- or I guess I mean to ask what would those other 4 be normally expected to be doing while all that was going down? We're they just standing behind the yelling cop and the shooting cop, or what?

Given the location this occurred in, a narrow hotel hallway, you dont spread out like you see in the movies. Officer safety still must be considered and spreading out creates a wall of flesh that would not require an armed person to use specific aim, instead allowing a "spray and pray" action IE squeeze off as many rounds as possible in hopes of hitting someone. A high likelihood given the location.

The other consideration, in addition to wounded or dead officers, is what those officers carry with them. Duty weapons and ammunition, pepper spray, collapsible baton, handcuffs, backup duty weapons, knives, tasers, shotgun, long guns, Ar's, radios etc etc.

So in addition to dealing with an armed suspect, you have to account for wounded officers, dead officers and the items they carry.

Also just because the call came in as one person with a weapon doesnt always mean one person. We have seen in the past ambush situations where the initial call was reported by the guy who ambushes and killed responding officers. Who is to say there is not an accomplice hiding in a room that is behind the lead officers location.

Situational awareness can be a bitch at times.

Hence the reason to single stack or to use a single stack for a few officers while keeping other officers back to deal with any advers4e fall out.


ETA -
Or what Sham stated. I just hit reply to your post without checking if it was already answered.

MY bad.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Thanks for the reply! I don't think I specifically asked you the 5 shots question, I think those first two times I just asked the whole thread.

All of that makes sense, thanks for the explanation. I was just wondering if those other four officers (any one of them) could have gone and cuffed the "suspect" at any point while all of that was happening (after the woman was secured). I have read the discussion about the location in the hallway- that if they went to cuff him, they would be near the room door and didn't know if there was threat there.

Awful situation.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for the reply! You and Sham6 both answered what I was getting at- I'm sure you've heard it a thousand times before from non law enforcement folks (like me)- I wish he could have just shot once and disabled the guy, then go secure him. But you both replied that you can't assume that because they are disabled, that they arent still going to fire back.

That sucks. From a civilian standpoint, you understamd hopefully that it looks downright barbaric when that cop pumped five bullets into a man who was on his hands and knees. Again I'm not arguing- I can see why it happened and the logic of the situation which you both just explained well. Really really awful, all of it.

a reply to: KansasGirl

I completely understand the optics and how people who are not in law enforcement / military see these types of situations. It is one of the reasons I post in these threads - to try and explain the side people dont understand / dont want to understand (and I get why some people are like that).

People dont have to agree with the info we provide and a lot of times the info provided is to help people understand why something occurred the way it did while not necessarily agreeing with the action in question by law enforcement (although that last parts gets overlooked - a lot).

People demand change in this area yet they cant be bothered to learn about it. Logic dictates that if you want change you identify the problem, the backstory of how the problem developed )IE laws / court rulings) and then use that knowledge to formulate a plan that gets the changes you think would be better than whats in place now.

Law Enforcement is one of those rare areas where the entire playbook and laws in question are freely available to the public. To not take advantage of that fact, to me, is why those who want change fail in their arguments.

The phrase come prepared or go home comes to mind...

I also recommend people take advantage of ride along programs / COP programs agencies have. See it first hand. Watching a video does not adequately relay these types of incidents. Its one thing watching a video in the comfort of your own home. Being a part of one of these situations first hand is something entirely different.

just my 2 cents.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

originally posted by: robynd0623
a reply to: Xcathdra

I can forward you to plenty of Facebook posts of military and L.E. who disagreed with the shooing. What makes your opinion better than theirs?

Like the saying goes opinions are like assholes.

I do it for a living.

and you?

Not to mention 12 people said no to the charges.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I agree with retired FBI agent James Gagliano --

Shaver's shooting was an avoidable execution. "Brailsford caused this tragedy, and it was entirely preventable." "His unprofessional conduct, inexperience, and confusingly issued commands directly and indirectly influenced Shaver's reactions that resulted in the shooting." "I have never heard a law enforcement professional use such offensive -- almost taunting -- rhetoric. The police officer appeared hell-bent on baiting a confused but receptive and compliant subject into making a deadly mistake."


Im sure your resume pales his though

a reply to: robynd0623

Since we work for different governments, different agencies and are guided by different laws and policies and responsibilities our resumes arent the same but thank you for demonstrating your petty ignorance.

Care to answer my question on your background?

The FBI agent also knows how review of officer involved shootings work and how they must be reviewed IE no 20/20 hindsight.

In the end the jurors reached a decision based on what they saw / heard in court.

the failure of the prosecution rests with the PA. Juries can only use the info they are provided by the prosecution and defense in court. In this case the jury could have convicted on Murder (requires intent) or manslaughter (action resulting in death).

If the video is so clear cut what did the jury miss?

originally posted by: robynd0623
a reply to: Xcathdra

I agree with retired FBI agent James Gagliano --

Shaver's shooting was an avoidable execution. "Brailsford caused this tragedy, and it was entirely preventable." "His unprofessional conduct, inexperience, and confusingly issued commands directly and indirectly influenced Shaver's reactions that resulted in the shooting." "I have never heard a law enforcement professional use such offensive -- almost taunting -- rhetoric. The police officer appeared hell-bent on baiting a confused but receptive and compliant subject into making a deadly mistake."


Im sure your resume pales his though

Boy does that sum it up perfectly. I haven't really argued whether the reach could have been construed as a reach for a weapon but the way in which the situation was handled and the obvious confusion of this guy because of the way it was handled. If anyone has answered why this guy couldn't be cuffed while on the ground with hands outstretched I have missed it. Seemed as if you thought he might be armed that flat on the ground, hands outstreched would be where you wanted him. Had he reached to pull something from his pocket in this position I would see how we could say it was justified. Everyone handles stress differently. I know alot people including myself possibly, who may have failed this hokie pokie type action while being screamed at by this armed maniac. The guy had already shown he wasn't handling the instructions screamed at him, why not have him lay back down arms outstretched to be cuffed?

a reply to: keenmachine

Supposedly it was because he was in front of the door and they were afraid that someone might come out shooting.

Another sad thing is that after the guy was shot they walk right up to the door flub the entry and actually stand there for like 20 seconds trying to open the door.

a reply to: keenmachine

I also think if the cop knew the suspect, he wouldn't have been yelling at him like an unstable step parent and suspect would have been still alive.

I didn't read all the posts in this thread (admittedly), but in my not so humble opinion, this was an "EXECUTION"! Period.

No mincing words here. There is absolutely NO excuse!

I'll be the first one to call foul on the NFL kneeling for the National Anthem, but this type of thing definitely makes me think twice!!