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: 37
83
<< 34  35  36    38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: notsure1
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.


What about the cop who screamed out (for what reason was he screaming at the guy? He used a calm tone with the woman and that worked out better, didn't it?) those ridiculous commands? I think that guy is the cause of how the whole thing ended up.
I agree that the one barking orders did not help anything. But the guy who took the shot has to be to blame.

When i 1st saw this video I watched it on mute and you could see the second they came out of that room they were shocked, scared ,compliant and a non threat. To actually pull that trigger and shoot that crying unarmed man.




posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




ut I understand the "why" behind people's anger over this incident, I just can't understand why many are incapable or unwilling to see the "other" side of it.


Here is why, we are untrained and we see he was clearly not a threat. Trained police should see what is so obvious to us.

I would have had no problem walking right up to that guy even if I thought he might have a gun. Everyone has a gun.

He was clearly not a threat to any one with any sense.

Why are cops so willing to kill?
edit on 14-12-2017 by notsure1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Is it any surprise that cop ended up in the Philippines under Duterte ?Where the cops are killing for fun..

I wonder if he will be a cop there? He will fit right in..



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 04:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thank you again. I appreciate the time and effort you put into that. Lots of info there! I'm trying very hard to understand the LE side as much as I can...

This case is a little extra creepy for me because I've actually been in that hotel. My brother and his wife stayed there for a couple months when she was a traveling nurse. The caller mentioned he was pointing the gun towards the freeway, but there's a golf course and a shopping center too between the hotel and the freeway.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 04:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Xcathdra
I'm trying very hard to understand the LE side as much as I can...


I'm pointing a rifle at you. I order you to do everything short of the macarina dance else I'm going to shoot you.

You, instinctively, pull up your pants.
I kill you.

That enough understanding?
edit on 12/14/2017 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: wickd_waze


You make a lot of good points. It got me thinking public service commercial spots like the seventies and eighties. But thats probably too offensive or people might be too sensitive to it or be offended even, I dont know.


I think the PSAs are a great idea. I've thought about those myself and how they could be used to educate the public in basic standards -- for everyone, on both sides of the badge. My hubby loves to watch cop shows, and too many people are just downright ignorant and obnoxious when interacting with the police, refusing to give even the slightest courtesy or respect right off the bat. I don't blame the officers for becoming suspicious. And then we see stuff like this, where the police give no courtesy or respect at all, with the absolute worst result, and it's easy to understand why folks have no respect for the police. It's a damn vicious self-feeding circle!


It's not good either that if Brailsford didn't shoot, someone else there might have. For me, eff it, I would have went with my instincts and stereotyped that guy and not fire because he didn't look like a criminal to me and didn't seem like a "tough" guy type because of the way he talked, all emotional, and broke down. Also looked like someone who was employed. He dressed normal also. I could point out many more but all in all he just didn't seem like or look like the type who would shoot it out with cops or start sniping people in public.


I think I'd have the same reaction. In fact, I'm surprised that it went this far at all -- in Arizona! Guns are everywhere here. If shots had been fired, I'd understand better... I'd understand if they went bat# crazy on the dude then! But simple possession of guns alone usually don't get this response. One sheriff deputy I know said that cops here expect that people are carrying because it is legal, nothing suspicious, so that is their operating premise. I know the couple times I've been pulled over, one of the first things they ask me is if I'm armed. (I'm not -- although my hubby and son sure want me to be!) That may be standard operating procedure everywhere though... I don't know.

But there should be some protocol known by both police and civilians for their interactions, and especially when the civilian is legally carrying a firearm. It doesn't make that person an automatic criminal. I was shocked after the Philip Castille shooting in Minnesota that there was no established protocol for police/civilian interaction when the civilian is licensed to carry. That's just stupid and a tragedy waiting to happen.

PSAs would be an excellent way to establish standards and educate the public.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 05:13 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Oooooh... that fixed everything. Feel better now???

Obviously, since I was asking about police training and procedures in general, not this specific case, I am obviously looking at more than just this specific situation. I'm betting dollars to donuts that the crap in this situation isn't taught in any police academy...

Have you never known good cops? Cops that you'd take a bullet for because they really are that awesome and the world needs them a whole lot more than it needs you??? If not, that's a shame. I have and do know such men, and I'm damn grateful we have such people in this crappy world. I'm not throwing them all under the bus.

If this is really such a problem for you and your conscience, and it should be, then you have a choice: you can be part of the problem or part of the solution. Talking trash only furthers the conflict -- and conflicting interests -- and makes everyone more suspicious of each other, and feeds the hate and anger and fear on all sides. If this is all you've got, and all you aspire to, then pat yourself on the back for being part of the problem and next time it happens, pat yourself on the back again...

And it's macarena.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: SlapMonkey

ATS isn’t my go-to ‘online karate magazine’, so I tend to remember those threads — what martial arts could he discover/practice in the Philippines (legit query)?


There are many in that part of the world, but the pure Filipino martial art that I practice is Eskrima (Arnis/Kali). I know that I said "a few" Filipino arts, but I was blurring the line between the Phillipines and Malaysia--we do Silat at my school (under Professor Jak Othman as well, but it's not mainly from the Phillipines.


I will say this much: any state attorney in the unenviable position of prosecuting one of their subordinates, would do well to read this thread and leave the case law book as a desk accessory. You guys (Shamrock and yourself) have done a public service for the next time this happens.

Don't forget Xcathdra, as well, as he's contributed a lot to the discussion...but I think that you're correct that it would help to distance one's self from the norm and actually see different persepctives on the topic. But I work with attorneys--they're not prone to doing that, because as we all know, they know everything.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
True, but they are not accepting that it wasn't only Shavers actions either.

1. Define "they."

2. Take the time to go back and read the posts, because Shamrock6, Xcathdra, and I have all noted that there were things that, at the least, Sgt. (ret.) Langley could have done differently to keep the situation from escalating like it did. I know that I have personally noted that there were poor decisions on both sides of the hallway, but in the end, it was Shaver's choice to reach for his waistband that culminated in him getting shot and killed.


I quoted it at the top of this page.

I looked--nothing that you quoted is tantamount to anyone saying that his actions at the window are why the police shot him. Xcathdra said that it was those actions that started the situation, which is true, but he didn't claim what you're saying has been claimed.

Why are you making things up?


You keep saying that but, here you are.

Yep, hoping that you and others can read and actually think about the reality of the situation. If you choose or fail not to do so, that's not on me.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Here is why, we are untrained and we see he was clearly not a threat. Trained police should see what is so obvious to us.

No one has said that he was a threat. Your inability or unwillingness to understand "threatening action/movement" in conjunction with the totality of the situation and the intel that the officers had at the time is why you will never understand.

You pretend that things are "clearly" this or "so obvious" to people, but in doing so, you expose your ignorance AND unwillingness to learn for everyone to see.


I would have had no problem walking right up to that guy even if I thought he might have a gun. Everyone has a gun.

Says some random internet guy who has never been in such a situation. But you have fun with that--maybe the hotel should have called you instead.


He was clearly not a threat to any one with any sense.

And you keep running with that narrative, but the irony is palpable.


Why are cops so willing to kill?

Why are people like you so willing to ask ridiculous questions that have foundations in BS and ignorance? You're not a big fan of reality, are you? I would suggest that you start by looking at the number of total LEOs in America, to include federal law enforcement, and then look at statistics of officer-involved shootings or deaths. Compare the numbers, and you...well, the average person willing to set aside emotional bias...will realize exactly how NOT willing cops are to kill.

But that would involve actual research and facts, and quite frankly, I'm convinced you are unwilling to undergo the former or accept the latter.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




Says some random internet guy who has never been in such a situation.


I have never been in what situation? Down the hall from another guy?

Stop acting like every situation for a cop is dangerous.
edit on 14-12-2017 by notsure1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-12-2017 by notsure1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




No one has said that he was a threat


So at no point you thought this guy was a threat but yet you think the shooting is justified?

LOL. just lol



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: notsure1




would suggest that you start by looking at the number of total LEOs in America, to include federal law enforcement, and then look at statistics of officer-involved shootings or deaths. Compare the numbers, and you...well, the average person willing to set aside emotional bias...will realize exactly how NOT willing cops are to kill.


yet so many more people killed by cops then cops killed by people? And only in America..

Why is that?



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

All the drama all the stress, all the confusion , all the bravado, all the escalation is all on the cops.

They could have just rung the damm room to find out whats going on. Instead they use it like a training exorcise.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: notsure1


yet so many more people killed by cops then cops killed by people? And only in America..

Why is that?


Well, to compare a nation where its citizens have a right to keep and bear arms with other nations who don't, it's a ridiculous comparison, although one commonly made by people with ideological biases on the matter.

More people are killed by officers that the other way around because civilians often choose to do stupid sh*t that gets themselves killed. Also, officers are in a position of authority where they can use appropriate deadly force on suspects when deemed necessary and as training and policy and law prescribes.

Quite bluntly, that's a stupid question.

More civilians are killed by other civilians than are by LEOs...but that's irrelevant to the point I made, as is your question.

 



originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: SlapMonkey

All the drama all the stress, all the confusion , all the bravado, all the escalation is all on the cops.

They could have just rung the damm room to find out whats going on. Instead they use it like a training exorcise.

If you say so...I mean, you do have the experience, training, and the skills necessary to deal with reports of someone aiming a rifle out of a hotel window and being unexpectedly confronted by the suspects in a hallway, so you certainly know what you're talking about.

But since you refuse to acknowledge this point, I've already stated numerous times that I understand that Sgt. (ret.) Langley could have handled things in a calmer, more controlled way, but that's not the only ingredient in this sh*t stew that led to the outcome.

Let's not forget who necessitated the officers to be called to the hotel in the first place, nor their actions that necessitated the assumption that they would/could be armed...unless, of course, that hurts your argument.

You have zero working knowledge of the intricacies of both the law and the procedures that govern a situation like this, and you keep making this abundantly clear ever time that you comment.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
1. Define "they."

The definition of they is "word used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified." Not sure that helps.


2. Take the time to go back and read the posts, because Shamrock6, Xcathdra, and I have all noted that there were things that, at the least, Sgt. (ret.) Langley could have done differently to keep the situation from escalating like it did. I know that I have personally noted that there were poor decisions on both sides of the hallway, but in the end, it was Shaver's choice to reach for his waistband that culminated in him getting shot and killed.

I don't need to go back. I saw it the first time. Xcathdra pretty much just ended up saying it was legal, the jury acquitted, stop bitching. Yes it is a dirty summary but that is basically what he ended up saying.

You know, some people might come across the OP and reply before going through 37 pages of back and forth and they might, understandably, do so emotionally. Nobody is forcing anyone to repeat themselves every time someone does that. If people are out of patience then just stop.

It wasn't his choice to reach for his waistband. It was reflex. And that is the part that I think gets people emotional. When they tell him that if he feels like he is falling that he better fall flat on his face or he will be killed (paraphrasing) it sounds like an unreasonable request. Reflexes are reflexes.


I looked--nothing that you quoted is tantamount to anyone saying that his actions at the window are why the police shot him. Xcathdra said that it was those actions that started the situation, which is true, but he didn't claim what you're saying has been claimed.

Why are you making things up?

It has been a long thread and many things have been said. I honestly don't care if you see it or not.


Yep, hoping that you and others can read and actually think about the reality of the situation. If you choose or fail not to do so, that's not on me.

Define "me and others"; (turnabout and all that).

I accepted the reality of the situation early in the thread. That is why I ask why I am being lumped in with those calling the the shooter a murderer, or questioning the legality of the shots.



edit on 14-12-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




f you say so...I mean, you do have the experience, training, and the skills necessary to deal with reports of someone aiming a rifle out of a hotel window and being unexpectedly confronted by the suspects in a hallway, so you certainly know what you're talking about.


It does not take training to know this guy is not gonna pull a "Statesman" and magically pull a gun out of his ass and kill 6 cops with automatic rifles pointed at him.

Blame the guy who called the cops, blame the dead guy, blame everyone but the guy who pulled the trigger.

Did he threaten anyone with said gun? did he point it at someone? Why do the cops hear gun and go in like that?

Between the 911 call and SWAT showing up was how long? And still no shots fired hmm .



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit


That seems a reasonable suggestion... It seems to me though, that state and Federal legislators, if they are worth being appointed to their posts, should figure out a way to legislate for a dynamic situation, and do it IMMEDIATELY, so that the next time something like this happens in similar circumstances, someone goes to jail. The shooting was not justifiable, and a man who did nothing illegal, nothing dangerous to the citizens of the country he lived in, lays dead because of it.


Unfortunately for the world, you are not the final arbiter of what is good, what is just, who is worthy, and who is a coward. Perhaps you should write a strongly worded letter to your state and federal representatives. Ah, yea....about that....


Of course not. That would be absurd. But its also realistic to suggest that there ARE things that an officer must not do, like ordering a person to crawl forward, while also ordering them to keep their hands up, but lay on the ground at the same time, and expecting a human being not to try to pull their trousers up when their motion across the ground causes them to be dragged off, which is an entirely involuntary response, like blinking, or sneezing. Most people, when faced with their trousers falling off, will respond in ANY situation, by pulling them up, regardless of whether they have been told not to, or not. Its an UNUSUAL person who would not respond that way.


You could also argue that most people, when faced with multiple guns pointed at them, won't do the exact thing they've been warned multiple times to not do.


And also, does this whole situation not bring up some rather concerning issues about the powers police have? If someone can get away with shooting a prone, unarmed person, just because he failed to follow totally unclear instructions while terrified out of his mind? If any person is in a position to shoot another person for non-compliance, does that not suggest that a tyranny has sprung up? Why is it that a police officers order is considered so important, that an officer can get away with shooting someone for failing to follow instructions, which is what actually happened here?


He was neither prone nor was he known to be unarmed. You keep repeating that as if it was a factor that was ignored when the shooting happened. It wasn't.

But yes, I would be on board with a piece of legislation that says "a law enforcement officer may not order a person to their knees, AND order them to cross their ankles, AND order them to raise their hands over their head, AND then order them to crawl to the officer while maintaining that posture." Because that's an absurd way to do things.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
I don't need to go back. I saw it the first time. Xcathdra pretty much just ended up saying it was legal, the jury acquitted, stop bitching. Yes it is a dirty summary but that is basically what he ended up saying.


That is not even close to what I stated and I have provided legal / resource material and explanations as to how and why this occurred. The problem some people seem to be having is the fact they pull up the news article and read all the information without an adequate understanding that the info in question was not known to the officers when this occurred.

Some people keep trying to use a 20/20 hindsight to evaluate the actions of the officers in question and then move on to how the jury got it wrong and how they were prevented from seeing certain information / evidence. At no point have those people bothered to understand / comprehend the reason for the judges actions and instead attack the system they clearly arent all that familiar with.

So stop blaming me for your inability to apply logic and reason to this mess. As I stated some people have an extremely bad habit of being unable to separate the explanations provided in this thread from leos / lawyers from the incident in question.

Being provided with the information / procedures and laws as to why this occurred does not always equate into an automatic agreement with the actions / outcome of the officers in question. It happens in every thread of this type where people are so quick to go after anything law enforcement that they ignore the information provided by certain people and instead attack them, not because of the info they are providing (which is ignored) but because you automatically see it as a defense of what occurred.

This incident occurred back in January of 2016. I dont see any posts on this topic nor from you or others when it occurred. What I do see are people posting an article that had the benefit of being covered over a year and Monday morning quarterbacking what happened all because of the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

A benefit the officers did not happen when this occurred. That means the jury is restricted to the almost the same situation with information to consider that the officers did not discover until after the fact. That information, for example the suspect being intoxicated, is reviewed by the jury in the sense of did the intoxication play a factor in the overall incident and if so was it mitigating or aggravating to the situation?

Ultimately at the end of the day for the jury the question they must answer is -

Given the facts and circumstances at the time were the officers actions consistent with those of what a reasonable officer would do in in that situation.

The answer to that question is then applied by the jury to the charges presented by the prosecutor at which point they decide if the threshold is met to find a person guilty of said charges.

At the end of the day we all can come up with probably 20+ different ways the call could have been handled with differing outcomes. The fact remains though that none of us were present and none of us were making the snap judgment calls that day.

Review the situation to find better methods of resolving these types of encounters for the next time - absolutely. Condemn the officers for the decisions made that day for this incident given the facts and information - nope.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
The definition of they is "word used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified." Not sure that helps.

Well, if nothing else, I can appreciate the smartassery.


-------------------NOTHING FOLLOWS---------------------


edit on 14-12-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 34  35  36    38  39 >>

log in

join