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

originally posted by: Xcathdra

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.

12 people who weren’t given all of the information. Everyone in this thread has agreed that the officer who shot the young man, made several mistakes. Those mistakes led him to misjudge the amount of danger he was in. The officer was scared. His voice was trembling, he started the event yelling threats of murder from the start. He gave several inconsistant and confusing orders.

People here have communicated time and time again that this is not the type of policing we want, and yet you defend this because it is what you have been taught is acceptable or even expected of you.

This young man was killed because the training you and he recieve, tells you that all of the checkmarks on your laundry list of acceptable reasons to kill someone were ticked off, he failed to see the signs that this guy was just some guy with his family, who happened to be seen with a gun, WHICH IS NOT A CRIME and does not illicit the response that took place. Lot’s of people have firearms. That’s no reason to go all swat at 120%.

The training itself has been shown to fail in spectacularly fatal displays of cowardice. But, it’s just an oops moment for any cop that sees this. The only people i have seen that think this was not a scared cop fatally losing his composure are other cops, and that is the truly scary part.

This cop’s jury was not given all of the information. This is an all too common tactic to save the state millions in liability payouts. His department fired him to save thier own asses. Because they are just more cowards.

As long as cops and judges protect cops and judges, justice is a farce.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
As long as cops and judges protect cops and judges, justice is a farce.

As long as people refuse to educate themselves on the criminal justice system and law enforcement while ignoring anything they cant understand or dont like you will continue to have that false view of judges and cops.

i hear it said that a few bad cops give the rest a bad name.

I say that is bull#.

I say that the fact that there are a few good cops still around, keeps everyone from calling all of the bad one’s what they really are.

We want a police force that protects and serves and judges that don’t side with the states interests because it’s more convenient. We are telling you that this is not what we are getting and you are not hearing it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Woodcarver
As long as cops and judges protect cops and judges, justice is a farce.

As long as people refuse to educate themselves on the criminal justice system and law enforcement while ignoring anything they cant understand or dont like you will continue to have that false view of judges and cops.

We understand that the criminal justice system sees this as a justifiable kill. We are telling you that that is the problem.

a reply to: Xcathdra

That is a cop out. Your bias is getting the better of you.

Shamrock said it early on, the shot was legal but that doesn't mean the situation was handled well (not his words).

Why are you are still here making excuses? Call a spade a spade. We are all human and we make mistakes. Langley and Shaver made theirs. Brailsford was the odd man out, put in this bad situation by the other two parties.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

All I can say about your comments, is as follows.

1) If you think law is not supposed to be written to uphold justice, then you have totally misunderstood the purpose of law, the reason for its very existence.

2) Your assertion that people automatically have well honed preservation instincts is simply incorrect, which is why so many people merely freeze up, become immediately traumatised and FAIL to behave in ways which might save their lives, when in stressful situations. It happens all the time, but never mind reality, eh?

3) If you expect people to perform precisely as directed, then you must also insist that the instructions they are given are clear, not confused, delivered in a calm manner, and are possible to complete without a persons pants falling down, for a start!

a reply to: Shamrock6

Ok...

WHY is there no such requirement, certainly in cases like this, where any gun on the suspect would have been easily visible to the officer involved, WELL before the thing left the waistband of the dead man?

a reply to: TrueBrit

Probably because state and federal legislators are exceedingly reluctant to try and write a law that gives law enforcement a script they’re required by law to follow when dealing with a fluid and dynamic situation.

A lot of the talk I’ve seen online is that this should have been handled like a felony traffic stop, and I agree with that. But the manner in which a a felony stop is conductedis a policy, and it’s a policy that can be deviated from at any point in the policy, for essentially any reason. It’s not a requirement that an officer does this exact thing in this exact order every time.

a reply to: Woodcarver

... We want a police force that protects and serves and judges that don’t side with the states interests because it’s more convenient. ...

...and far, far, less expensive!

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Woodcarver
As long as cops and judges protect cops and judges, justice is a farce.

As long as people refuse to educate themselves on the criminal justice system and law enforcement while ignoring anything they cant understand or dont like you will continue to have that false view of judges and cops.

We understand that the criminal justice system sees this as a justifiable kill. We are telling you that that is the problem.

and the way to fix it is to see why its seen as justifiable and proceed from there.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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...

Thank you. I think this is worth repeating. My thanks to Shamrock and SlapMonkey also for sharing your knowledge and experience with us as well... especially because you all get so much grief for doing so. I have argued/debated the issues with all of you, and I don't like what you have to tell us, but I very much appreciate that you do share your expertise, and that you do it so reasonably and politely.

Good job guys!!!

For the rest of us, we need to appreciate the value of what these LEOs are sharing with us, and use that knowledge to make the changes we want to see. The rot starts at the TOP -- not the bottom. The officers are on the street are doing what they are trained and told to do. Of course the critters at the top want us to look at the individual officers on the street and blame them and only them... (divide and conquer)... Because it gets us nowhere!!! We need to understand how it came to be this way and how it stays this way, and attack the problem at the root. In the courts, in the legislature, in the unions, etc.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra

That is a cop out. Your bias is getting the better of you.

Shamrock said it early on, the shot was legal but that doesn't mean the situation was handled well (not his words).

Why are you are still here making excuses? Call a spade a spade. We are all human and we make mistakes. Langley and Shaver made theirs. Brailsford was the odd man out, put in this bad situation by the other two parties.

I have made no excuses. I have presented, along with a few others, the law / reasons why this was seen as justified. As I said if you dont like it then learn about the system, learn the laws and then put together a solution you think would work better than what we have now.

Simply bitching and attacking something is not productive and does nothing to get the changes you think is needed.

As for the situation that would be the suspect who acted in a manner that caused other people concern when he handled the weapon the way he did.

As for bias I will say you and a few others have no right to make that argument since you are guilty of the very thing you accuse me of. If your going to throw rocks dont do it from inside your glass house.


As far as how other officers see it it is all dependent on the state they are leo's in and their level of training / setup of their department. I opted to go the patrol route and moved up through the ranks in that are (officer / senior officer / field training officer / corporal / MCI corporal). One of the other areas not touched on all that much is an officers experience and training. An officer with a lot of experience and training could take an action and be ok where an officer with less training and experience could take the same action and find himself / herself in heap loads trouble.

The other factor is the state and what federal appeals circuit they are in. As an example all states within the 9th circuit appeals are required by one of their rulings to classify the taser as one step below deadly force but higher than pepper spray / batons / closed hand techniques etc etc. States outside the 9th have differing laws / policies as to where a taser falls in the use of force / subject resistance control continuums.

That in turn creates situations where multiple agencies on the same call have differing use of force. As an example my department does not allow the use of a taser, either darts or drive stun, on a person who is in custody. Smaller agencies in my area, including the S.O. allow the use of tasers in those cases (with some restrictions).

In this case (in the op) a sergeant was present and if I am not mistaken he is the one who fired the first shots. Control of a call is, again, dependent on department policy. A well trained and competent staff should require little supervision and supervisors will act more as a resource to assist than taking over and directing the call. Case laws in my state places a higher standard on supervisors who are present at an incident and they can be held accountable for other officers actions lower in rank (liability / culpability).

I raise the last points just as added reference for the topic discussion. I am sure Sham and Slap and I will see situations differently and thats based on our state law / appeals circuit and department policy in addition to primary responsibility (admin / investigations / patrol / training / etc).

Its not uncommon to have differing views among leos however one thing I think we all agree on (and I could be wrong) is not getting into a bad habit of monday morning quarterbacking another officers decision when not present to witness it first hand or having all the facts / info that led up to the incident itself.. It is entirely possible to disagree with what the officer did however it does not mean said officer was in the wrong for the actions they chose.

a reply to: daskakik

I think the training of officers is poor. Or perhaps maybe the training is for critical thinking people and not for people hell bent on looking for ways around protocols to get themselves some scalps.

An example being an obvious non threat getting shot up trying to balance himself and instincts kicking in to pull up his pants in a very confusing situation. No ones gonne be thinking straight with assault rifles pointed at them. The officers there had numbers and no one had the galls to go up to the suspect, where they had him laying on his stomach, and pin him? He had crawled far away enough from the door at that point.

The reminds me of an incident a year or two ago in a small town in Arizona where officers gunned down a drunk young lady, probably in blackout stage, after encountering her after she stole some stuff from a convenience store and was wielding a pair of scissors. She was told to drop her weapon she didnt comply and cop shot her. I know the cop had a right to shoot her after being told to drop her weapon but c'mon man. You frigging avoid killing an easy prey and an easy arrest and just charge the lady with stun guns and batons like critical thinkers would have done.

I saw an interview with the wife yesterday, she said her 8 year old daughter tried to choke her self out at school because she wanted to be with her dad

They also said the DOJ was looking into charging him federally. So lets keep the outrage up and maybe we will seee some justice.

a reply to: wickd_waze

I think the training of officers is poor. Or perhaps maybe the training is for critical thinking people and not for people hell bent on looking for ways around protocols to get themselves some scalps.
An example being an obvious non threat getting shot up trying to balance himself and instincts kicking in to pull up his pants in a very confusing situation. No ones gonne be thinking straight with assault rifles pointed at them. The officers there had numbers and no one had the galls to go up to where they the suspect laying on his stomach and pin him? He had crawled far away enough from the door at that point.

I'm still trying to work this out in my head... but I think our officers are trained exactly how the PTB want them to be trained -- but their purposes are very different than ours!!!

In this situation, as I understand it (and someone correct me quick if I'm wrong!!!), the one screaming and barking virtually impossible orders to the victim was not the officer who fired the gun, but it was the officer's sergeant... presumably the one in charge of this whole travesty, and who fled to the Phillipines after the shooting leaving the officer to face the music alone... like the freaking piece of crap coward that he obviously is. It was the sergeant who was putting EVERYONE on edge and created a volatile situation for EVERYONE -- including his officers. None of that was necessary nor proper.

This may not be the best analogy, but it's similar to how children will react to a parent's reaction. When my kids were little and falling and tripping and whatever, I would wait to see what they did before I reacted -- if they brushed themselves off and went on their way, then great. If they cried and screamed, then I went to see what was hurt. My hubby and mother-in-law would absolutely panic though -- and then my kids would panic!

All this to say, I think the officer reacted as much to the panic and chaos caused by the sergeant as he did to the actions of the victim.

One of the things the public needs to shine a huge spotlight on is how officer training and/or procedure often CREATES dangerous situations... or at least situations that can be perceived as dangerous by an officer, if not outright provocation (such as a no-knock warrant, in which the occupants try to defend themselves, and are then shot and killed because the officers' lives were threatened). In this case, for example, this guy was NEVER a threat to the officers. But they did not know that. So he was considered/perceived/treated as a definite threat. Guilty until proven innocent even if that proof necessarily comes after his death.

Of all the training LEO's have to do, of all the situations they can speculate about to defend the actions of this "officer" (threats, self-defense, etc.), why is it so hard to issue uniform commands in such a situation?????

Commands like...FACE DOWN...ON THE GROUND! ARMS STRAIGHT OUT!! CROSS YOUR FEET BEHIND YOU!! (over and over, until the suspect complies or tries to escape). What is so hard about that??? Wouldn't something simple like this have avoided this entire tragic situation?

Simply, what is so hard about that???

Instead, the suspect gets numerous conflicting demands, and "you're F#'d" boy gets a free trigger pull to live up to the mantra on the dust cover of his firearm.

Seriously, does it really matter whether his personal AR-15 passed inspection with, or without, the inscription on the dust cover? No, it doesn't, because regardless of when the inscription was put there, the very presence of the inscription speaks to an attitude harbored by the officer himself, a mantra, and personal inspiration...a mindset..."you're F#'d" (meaning, when this dust cover pops open it's "game over")...and this is exactly what happened!

Debate it all you want.

P.S. And yeah, I get it that he wasn't the one barking the conflicting orders, but tattoo boy wasn't complaining either; he got to play HALO 4 in real life just like he probably always hoped.

Hey, America...guess what? "You're F#'d"!

edit - And you know, it would be one thing if this was an isolated incident, but it's not. How many other cases have we all seen where similar events have happened much the same way? And the response is always the same..."well, he didn't comply". And in almost every case we see examples of numerous conflicting demands by LEO's...hey, maybe there's something to that!

a reply to: Boadicea

Training standards are not uniform with the exception of state established minimum requirements in terms of hours a police academy runs and the continuing education requirements beyond the academy.

The academy teaches just enough to get a new officer in a lot of trouble. After an academy an officer joins a department and undergoes further field training. Law Enforcement is one of those areas that is, for the most part, revolves mainly around on the job training. My state has 2 classifications / certifications (used to be 3 but one was dropped and only applies to corrections officers / staff with no arrest authority). My academy was a class A academy and upon graduation and employed with an agency I have the same authority as the state Highway Patrol (IE jurisdiction in the entire state instead of restricted to my city only). A class B restricts a person to their jurisdiction only. That translates into several thousand hours worth of training before a person is released from field training and out on their own.

My agency builds a requirement into field training observations that specifically looks for and expects a new officer to speak to senor officers on calls if they have questions or need assistance. It also observes the new officers ability to take constructive feedback / criticism from senior officers (as appropriate) in addition to reaction to a senior officer taking over a new officers call (as appropriate). Our training program places a new officer with a FTO and for training reasons the FTO is not considered as an available officer for the new officer to use (again as appropriate). It forces the officer to think for themselves and to recognize situations where they might need more training / assistance. The FTO is always present to prevent issues of course.

There is a lot more in terms of training but this is a brief overview based on my state / agency.

If you guys have more questions about anything in this realm just ask. People will be able to provide answers / guidance.

there is another video on the facebook page that shows the cop beating up a teen just months before the shooting.

One of his excessive force complaints.

www.facebook.com...

And they tried to hide the video..

www.youtube.com...

In it's most fundamental of terms, I guess I just have a problem with abuse of power...justified or not.

At the end of the day, we can debate semantics and minute technicalities all we want, but the net result is a person is dead. And, justified or not, if we allow ourselves to live in a society where LEO's can get a free pass to be judge, jury and executioner then we should not be surprised at the result.

Oh, and regarding the Murder 2 charges. This was never even close to the criteria for Murder 2 (manslaughter maybe, but never murder 2), and I suspect the DA knew exactly that too. So he/she knew he'd be aquitted...all according to plan. So to any defenders of this situation, I guess the end justified the means, right?

Pretty sad really.