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

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: SlapMonkey


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.

Your 20/20-hindsight vision is impeccable.

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

Are you implying that Shaver would have been shot had he not acted a fool at his window and made threatening actions twice at gunpoint, the second time being after he was told not to do it again or else he would get shot?

Are you implying that the officers should have just magically known that he had no weapon?

You OP started off with ignorance, and you seem to want to double down at every chance you get. At this point, it can be nothing but willful ignorance. This absolutely will be the last time that I respond to you. My three-year-old daughter could grasp these concepts better.

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 .

Yeah. You're incapable of understanding things.

Best regards.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Dammit, Shamrock6...I thought that you had come to your senses and given up on this thread.

Do yourself a favor and don't read the last few pages.

a reply to: notsure1

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

Americas love of guns and the 2nd amendment, the expectation that everyone is packin ..it's the price paid I guess.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You keep going back to legalities when I'm not talking about that. How hard is that for you to understand?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It wasn't just smartassery. I was pointing out that the beef between Xcathdra and I is about him addressing me as if I am saying that the shooter was guilty or that the shots were illegal.

You tried to call me out for lumping people under "they" then turn around and lump me into "me and others".

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra

You keep going back to legalities when I'm not talking about that. How hard is that for you to understand?

How hard is it for you to understand legalities are required to understand the situation. Leaving legalities out of it does nothing.

I don't know if this was ever posted, and I doubt it will matter to most in this thread who disregard evidence, but this is a body-cam recording of the incident from another officer who was in the hallway. The interesting thing that I note concerning this audio is that Sgt. Langley's commands appear much less "screamy" and are much more easy to understand, as far as the words that are coming out of his mouth, in this camera's audio. I would scrub to the 9:45 point in the timeline, unless you want to watch that long of officers just standing in position:

Here is my transcript of the incident pertaining to Shaver, if any of you want to read it:

LANGLEY: K, young man, listen to my instructions and do not make a mistake.
You are to keep your legs crossed, do you understand me?

SHAVER: Yes sir.

LANGLEY: You are to put both of your hands palm down straight out in front of you.
Push yourself up to a kneeling position.

(SHAVER uncrosses his legs while pushing up)

I said keep your legs crossed!

SHAVER: I’m sorry, I’m sorry. I just…

(SHAVER moves both hands behind his lower back, then moves them to the front of his waist)

LANGLEY: I didn’t say this was a conversation…Hands up in the air! Hands up in the air!

(Another officer is heard also telling SHAVER to put his hands in the air)

You do that again, we are shooting you, do you understand?

SHAVER: No, no, please do not shoot me.

LANGLEY: Then listen to my instructions!

SHAVER: Okay, I’m trying to do what you say…

LANGLEY: Don’t talk, listen!

Hands, straight up into the air—do not put your hands down for any reason. If you think you’re gonna fall then you fall on your face. If your hands go back to the small of your back or down, we are going to shoot you, do you understand me?

SHAVER: (sobbing) Yes sir.

LANGLEY: Crawl towards me.

(SHAVER puts his hands on the ground in a crawling position)

Crawl towards me!

SHAVER: (sobbing and crawling) Yes, sir.
Jesus Christ.

(SHAVER reaches toward the right side of his waist)

(LANGLEY and other officers yell for SHAVER not to do that, immediately followed by BRAILSFORD firing five rounds, striking and killing SHAVER)

And then there's this video...this is the woman (Monique Portillo) who came out of Shaver's room and was part of the incident. She even testified that she had no idea if Shaver was armed when he came out of the room, and that he was shot because he didn't follow commands and reached for the waistband of the shorts. Also notice the rifle in the video--I shoot guns and own guns, and I could not tell you that this was an air rifle if I saw it sticking out of a fifth-story window:


And this is her being questioned by a female police officer directly after the incident in front of the hotel...she is obviously distraught, and rightfully so. Sadly, this poor lady got left by her coworker in Shaver's room, where she was scared by the rifle, then that's when they received the call from the front desk for them to leave the room because law enforcement was waiting for them (which corrects my concern that they exited the room as a surprise to the officers). One interesting thing is that Portillo is capable of repeating the instructions that the officer gave her about getting on her knees and crawling on her knees with her hands up toward the officers. She also says that they had "a shot" of Bacardi before her coworker, Luis, left the room. She could be downplaying the amount that she drank, but she certainly doesn't sound intoxicated during this questioning:

I looked it up: Toxicology reports on Shaver was that he had BAC level of .27 and .29 (measured in different areas of the body), which was more than three times the legal limit to drive. I wish that he wouldn't have lied about being drunk at the start, as this might have ended better for him if it would have caused Langley to adjust how he delivered his commands or the commands that he gave altogether.

All of this is provided in the interest of gaining a better overall picture of what happened, but at this point in the game, I'm unsure if many people still participating actually are interested in learning more, or just defending their own conclusions. Apologies if any of this has already been posted.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Maybe to understand the legal process and why that played out how it did but not to just discuss what happened.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Sounds like he was pretty hammered, not at all surprising he had problems following the commands, or acted on reflex to pull his pants or shorts up.

a reply to: SlapMonkey


This does add some more clarity.
The guy did not follow simple instruction and the officer actually gave him more than one chance - in fact the officer risked his own life in order NOT to shoot at least twice.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I also thought that the police might have been surprised by the two coming out into the hall but they actually called them out into the hall. Your transcript is missing the part where they are told to stop and get on the floor only to then order them to move by what shamrock called an absurd way to do things.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Also notice the rifle in the video--I shoot guns and own guns, and I could not tell you that this was an air rifle if I saw it sticking out of a fifth-story window:

LMAO But you would have been able to tell he did not have it in his waistband right?

a reply to: notsure1
The simple solution is to do the superman and completely ignore any demands to move toward armed men who have already agreed to the proper way to legally murder someone. Lay down, call them nutless pussy whipped cucks if they do the usual "im going to yell as loud as possible to make myself less scared of you!", and tell them you are not moving, grow a pair and approach a man lying down with his hands visible in a vulnerable position already being covered by five other grown men armed to the teeth and just do the damn job you volunteered to do in life.

Any other sudden movements WILL lead to them murdering you legally, so just save your life and lay down and refuse to approach them when they already have you zeroed in for death.

If six armed men are so scared of somebody laying down with their hands out they would open up on them anyways, you are already dead. At least them shooting an immobile non threatening target will hopefully cement and ass raping prison time conviction, preferably with the perps they have locked up over the years. But you know, LEO's are actually superior humans to the rest of us civilians with better rights, so they will end up in those secure facilities for high risk inmates.

Hmm, I have not checked on the idiot in Miami that actually did shoot a compliant human who was laying down. Lets see how that trial is going for Jonathan Aledda

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I watched everything you posted there. The woman said also, during her testimony on the stand, that he was shot bevause his shorts were falling down and he reached down out of instinct to pull them up. She said "if you're crawling with your hands in the air your shorts are going to fall down and your reaction is going to be to pull them up." (That's my immediate memory of watching her on the stand- if my phone doesn't freeze up agsin I'll go back and get and post her exact quote). In fact, the news clip says that she testified that he got shot because he "didn't follow protocol" but they don't show us the part where she says that. They show us the part where she describes him moving his hands to his waist because it was a reaction to pulling his pants up due to being told to crawl. I guess we just have to trust them that she said he was shot for not following protocol.

She sounded drunk, to my ears, when the female officer is questioning her, in the clip you posted. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that the officer asked the two if they were drunk and they both said no, and that poster used that as a defense of the cops in this situation- that he wasn't drunk, he said he wasn't drunk, so the officer doesn't deserve any critique about the commands he issued. I said then and I say it again now- drunk people often will not admit they are drunk and in fact they often do not even realize that they are drunk. Seems to be that if anyone knows this about people, it's cops.

I don't aporeciate your little barb about "I dount people still participating in this thread are interested in learning more, they just want to defend their position." I am still participating and I have watched everything and read everything you and the law enforcement posters have put out.
I have been interested in learning and still am.

But I think what you really mean is "if you don't agree with what I say, then you are wrong. I am law enforcement and the only way to interpret this situation is from the law enforcement side and it's the only correct way to look at the situation." seems to me that tou are going to take issue with everyone's opinions on this, unless they are deferring to you. I fully expect you now to either 1) come and correct me on how I'm wrong or what I'm not understanding or 2) say you're not going to engage with me anymore because I'm not capable of seeing it the right way (your way). I'm getting this a little bit, too, from Shamrock and Xcath. Opinions or thoughts on this matter have no bearing unless they are coming from another law enforcement officer. There is no way that the law enforcement way of seeing this could be wrong, and no way that the laws about this matter could be wrong.

As I said, I've watched everything in this thread and read what y'all have posted. I do see that it is incredibly dangerous to be a cop, and sometimes impossible to know if a suspect is armed and what their intent is. I respect police and hold themin high regard, and thank them for doing the job I know I could never do.

It definitely could be construed that Shaver was reaching for a gun in his shorts. I still think his death is the fault of the officers, especially the one screaming the commands. (And he sounded just as loud and out of control, to me, in the other bodycam video that you posted) He was capable of issuing calm and clear commands- he did so when dealing with the woman. Shaver tried to get clarification and the officer shouted him down. If that were me I may have gotten shot too, because I probably would have completely frozen up, especially if I got screamed at for trying to get clarification on what was wanted of me. Because for that cop that night, if you didn't obey him exactly, you're gonna get shot. He said it. That cop's instructions were TERRIBLE. And that he didn't have the foresight to know that the man might be drunk (and that was one of the first things he asked them, so something must have made him suspect they were impaired, right?), and therefore might have trouble with his commands, that is terrible work too. TERRIBLE. That cop did a sh*tty job that night. Absolutely sh*tty, and THAT is why Shaver is dead.

Bring on the lecture now and tell me how I am wrong and how I am incapable of understanding the issue or that my reading comprehension is poor or that I'm just going on emotion. Or you could just come out and say what you really mean: there is no way the police officer is at fault, and there is no room for any argument other than what is presented by a law enforcement officer.
ETA: I know that you all said the cop issuing commands could have done a better job with that part of it, so don't come and tell me I didn't read all of your posts.

weird guy coming through..

i think god may have let this situation unfold as it is..
not because shaver should be dead..
but to prove to cops across america, to be more open minded.

just because you hear of something, doesn't mean it is exact

a reply to: KansasGirl

I applaud that post ..... you've said exactly what so many others feel and have accomplished it from a (what I believe to be) non bias perspective.

There are particular situations where this type of law enforcement is absolutely necessary, but this wasn't one of those situations, within seconds (not minutes) of this couple appearing it was clearly apparent to so many...... but not a highly trained LEO.

I'll say it again..... human intuition.... or lack thereof.

originally posted by: Catch_a_Fire
a reply to: KansasGirl

I applaud that post ..... you've said exactly what so many others feel and have accomplished it from a (what I believe to be) non bias perspective.

There are particular situations where this type of law enforcement is absolutely necessary, but this wasn't one of those situations, within seconds (not minutes) of this couple appearing it was clearly apparent to so many...... but not a highly trained LEO.

I'll say it again..... human intuition.... or lack thereof.

Whew, thanks CatchAFire! I probably have some lectures coming my way in responses, so I appreciate the back-up!

I DO applaud police officers and like I said, I wouldn't last two seconds on even the easiest days of their jobs.

Adding to what you mentioned, the guy immediately dropped to his knees when he saw the cops there and registered it. They told him just to stop, and he immediately dropped to his knees AND put his hands in the air. the officer didn't need to escalate it from there.

originally posted by: KansasGirl
Adding to what you mentioned, the guy immediately dropped to his knees when he saw the cops there and registered it. They told him just to stop, and he immediately dropped to his knees AND put his hands in the air. the officer didn't need to escalate it from there.

You don't need to get that defensive, everyone knows these cops crazy
there's even videos of them perpetrating coc aine into an innocent dudes wallet to make their quota

they are being trained how to take out people
that involves me and you
every body good and equal , trained to kill
= murderers


there's nothing good about a cop, NOTHING
every body working fine on their own, peaceful and cooperative
nobody wants a cop in their life, no one

just save the world and don't become a cop

I have been trying, honestly trying, for the past 2-3 days to distill this discussion down into a single message about this event. I have as yet been unable to do this satisfactorily. I've read all the posts, every one. I would like to think I'm a pretty objective person. I have to be in my line of work. No matter what angle I look at this from I cannot find a position where I feel the shooting of Shaver was the "right" thing to do. And yes, I am looking at this event in hindsight, I admit that. Frankly, it's the only way we can look at it now, in retrospect.

There is a message here though, there has to be. And that message is a big one, a message about how people should react when confronted by armed law enforcement. Is the message 'follow their directions, absolutely, without exception'? You know, I don't think it is actually. In fact, I don't think that is the message at all. I think it is actually very different. And maybe that message should be something which develops a standard of action for all people when faced with a similar situation.

I wonder what would have happened if Shaver would have just laid face down, arms outstretched, and not moved? If he had just ignored all the conflicting commands and just remained motionless? If anyone, confronted with a similar situation, just laid face down, arms outstretched, and ignored the screaming demands of armed law enforcement? I think it seems pretty clear, following this event and others, that the demands of law enforcement, while possibly not intentional, are unreliable. Unreliable to the point of putting lives at risk.

I've looked at this video, read the testimony and all the posts here a hundred times, and no matter how many times I look at it I still can't come away with the feeling Shaver was ever a threat...a threat to the officers or anyone else. I'm sorry, but I just can't. No matter how many times we dance around technicalities such as who was issuing the commands versus who did the shooting. No matter how many times we theorize about how reaching for a waistband is clearly (to some) an aggressive and life threatening act.

The facts are, Brailsford was acquitted by a jury in a court of law. Okay, he managed to satisfy the "technicalities' of the law to the extent he was found to be not guilty. A court of law does not prove "innocence", only guilt or lack thereof. At the end of the day Brailsford wasn't found "innocent", only not guilty of the crimes he was charged with. And, I think this is a key point in this discussion; some are arguing Brailsford's innocence while others are attempting to justify his being not guilty...and the two are different.

Brailsford may have been found to be "not guilty", but Brailsford, no matter how you slice it, was far from "innocent".