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

Murder. That cop should fry. That guy was scared out of his mind and they were giving him complex instructions. Dumbasses.

This is why Kap got the Ali award.

I like cops, and work with several in my business, but bad cops need to be put away so the rest of us dont' have to fear for our lives.

Murder.

Is anyone else noticing a pattern in the media when it comes to police brutality and race?

I almost feel guilty sticking up for the victim in this one because once again... he's white.

In fact, damn near every time the victim is white, I wind up cursing the police and calling them bullies and murderers... because they're usually clear cut cases of out of control cops.

This particular event is probably the most disturbing thing I've ever seen. It was so screwed up that my brain is having a hard time believing this video is real.

Yet 99% of the times when the victim is black, I always find the details and videos to be sketchy as hell and often misleading.

I consider myself an objective person, and I refuse to believe that I'm biased in favor of white people, but if someone were to claim that I'm only against police brutality when it happens to a white person... based on my posting history... they would be correct.

The point is, these types of incidents happen every day, but the media picks and chooses which ones we focus on and for a very particular reason in my opinion.

Protect your minds folks.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Nothing about this comes close to meeting the requirements for a murder charge, and I think the prosecutor did himself and the community (to say nothing of the family) a disservice by bringing the charges.

Notwithstanding the officers’ engagement and the events that followed, I believe the prosecutor/state attorney’s office made the biggest mistake in this entire affair in charging and litigating a 2nd-degree murder case. They (state attorney’s office) had the privilege of foresight and complete information, and yet, still pursued a murder charge. There are several ‘boxes that need to be checked’ to deliver a guilty verdict and they, surely, knew the almost impossible means of delivering that end with respect to an LEO. Everyone involved would have been better served if they pursued a conviction of some sorts on the grounds of negligence — a manslaughter charge of some sort may have had some legs to it.

Sidebar: Does anyone know if the officer who retired did so on his own voiltion (e.g. was he scheduled to retire before this incident?)? I am curious if this affair had anything to with his retirement.

originally posted by: ZombieWoof
a reply to: SlapMonkey

The way these cops, including the one barking orders, went about disarming these people was wrong, and was a contributing factor in this death. Maybe if they actually allowed him to speak, asked a few questions, things might have been different. The guy was freaked out, but didn't deserve to die for that. Obviously they had a major case of god complex.

I agree with much of what you're saying here, but I don't think that this officer was the problem, I think that it was (retired) Sgt. Charles Langley, who was the loud, screaming voice of the operation.

I wouldn't want you on the street because you think this was justifiable. Might as well put robocop out there if humans can't apply critical thinking, treat people with respect and make good choices in stressful situations.

I don't think that it was a justifiable shooting, I know that it was, and the verdict reinforces that reality. But, just because it's justified, that doesn't mean that I think that it was necessary at that point, or that I don't think that this was a tragic situation that could have been avoided.

Lots of justified things can be avoided in life if people would just slow down a little a breathe. I think that the team was surprised by their exit from the hotel room, and so adrenaline was higher than it otherwise may have been and contributed to a very bad way to say commands to these people. But that's just speculation, as I haven't read documents that say otherwise.

But ask yourself this: Sgt. (ret.) Langley was able to command the female to do the right thing and safely crawl toward them. He screamed the orders in the same way, but she was able to comply without doing anything threatening. Mr. Shaver, on the other hand, for some reason couldn't comply with the basic (and appropriate) command to stop reaching for his waistband or else he would get shot.

The result of this reality is that Shaver knew what not to do--those commands were perfectly clear, and any intelligent human being would know not to do it anyhow--and the repercussions if he did read for his waistband again. Shaver reached for his waistband, and considering the intelligence that the officers had at the time, it was appropriate to assume that he was reaching for a weapon.

Brailsford reacted methodically and controlled in the face of all of this, and this is why it is not a criminal act.

But again, I think that if a different officer had been controlling the dictation of commands to those people, they might still be alive. But that's diving into 20/20-hinsight what-ifs, which is inappropriate at this point.

What I take out of this... Even being a former police officer myself is this.

1 - The officer was a dick. He should have controlled the situation and that also includes giving the respect he wants in return. If this had been done correctly, the 'suspect' would have been more at ease.

2 - The officer didn't have to go all SWAT on someone based on assumptions. This tells me:

If some random Joe Blow assumes what he see's on my person is a weapon and calls it in... Yet I don't have anything of the sort... That officer can come and blow me away without so much as a verbal warning because my adrenaline was surging a million times over normal and I made a mistake because my brain WOULD NOT allow me to make logical decisions at that time. The officer wouldn't get a slap on the wrist because it was "justified".

How would that officer accept the same verdict if it were done to his own family?

As a former police officer... THAT officer is far too trigger happy to do well at that job. He's too chicken# to make rational decisions. You can see that in his actions and his voice. You have to be calm and level headed in times like this.
He should be in the military and NOT on a police force. He's apparently not capable of thinking rationally himself. He can't control the situation and he's a dick to boot and you don't need that kind of person in a position of authority when that authority is to SERVE and Protect, not dominate and assassinate.

He should have approached cautiously but calmly. Not pull finger trigger happy.

Personally I would like to see his badge taken and not allowed to join any authoritative force ever again. He was justified in shooting but only by the standards of a coward, not a protector. Yes, the law protects him and he is justified but foolishly so. He was just as scared as the suspect and that doesn't account for anything but mistakes.

I hate that this happened and I want that officer to be punished for what I consider a horrible crime but I can't sentence him without bias. He was justified, I say again because he obviously was.. but damnit man! I almost want to curse him with seeing that guys face and know his children and wife's sadness, hate, their screams... every single night but I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

This is just a really messed up, sad story. I hate these stories!

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: RadioRobert

Notwithstanding the officers’ engagement and the events that followed, I believe the prosecutor/state attorney’s office made the biggest mistake in this entire affair in charging and litigating a 2nd-degree murder case. They (state attorney’s office) had the privilege of foresight and complete information, and yet, still pursued a murder charge. There are several ‘boxes that need to be checked’ to deliver a guilty verdict and they, surely, knew the almost impossible means of delivering that end with respect to an LEO. Everyone involved would have been better served if they pursued a conviction of some sorts on the grounds of negligence — a manslaughter charge of some sort may have had some legs to it.

Sidebar: Does anyone know if the officer who retired did so on his own voiltion (e.g. was he scheduled to retire before this incident?)? I am curious if this affair had anything to with his retirement.

Maybe they thought they could get him to plea down to something and put a feather in their caps, but it was dumb to take it to trial.

I am also curious about the circumstances surrounding the sgt's retirement, but wanted to keep my comments toward the simple legal requirements and why he was not found guilty.

originally posted by: StallionDuck

Personally I would like to see his badge taken and not allowed to join any authoritative force ever again.

Personally I'd like to see someone remove his tongue with a pair of pliers.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Perhaps you can anwer this.

Why were the officers directing the man to crawl towards them.

I am no expert on these high intensity situations, but here is my take.

The officers are presumably trained to give instruction that have the best chance of keeping everyone safe.

In this sitution we have two officers, and two suspects. Both suspects are instructed to get on the ground with hands up.

So far so good.

Then the woman appeared to be cuffed.

At this point, wouldnt the sfaest course of action be to have the man stay laying down with his hands extended?

Any request to have the man move seem to increase the chances of either him being able to reach a weapon and fire, or tragically as happened be mistaken for reaching for a weapon.

The safest thing seems to me would have been to have one officer continue to point the gun at the suspect, instruct the suspect not to move at all, and have the second officer move in to cuff him.

If these officers were trained to act in the way they did, I feel that training needs to be changed.

a reply to: StallionDuck

You do realize the officer issuing commands and the officer that did the shooting are two different officers, right?

And that some of those commands were pretty specific about not doing the exact thing that caused Shaver to get shot? For example, when Shaver initially put his hands behind his back and is told "you do that again we're shooting you," or "your hands go back to the small of your back we are going to shoot you." I feel like as a former police officer, you would've recognized those as "verbal warnings" but perhaps I'm mistaken.

Or you're just being hyperbolic in the appeal to emotion. Who knows.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Here is a question, once one person is secure and the other is imobile on the floor, isnt it standard practice to secure the second persons hands, then do anything else like bring him to where you need him?

If the cop did his job like an idiot and someone died, is it not the idiots fault?

The victim isnt trained in how to best be arrested. The professionals at arresting people effed up.

Thats why people are "emotional". We are dying out here...

a reply to: Grambler

I answered this a few pages back but I'll reiterate it:

Tactically speaking, he was laying too close to the doorway of the room, and they had no idea if anybody else was in the room or standing in the doorway. I don't think they could see even the doorway of the room, much less into the room, without moving forward to a position that would put them practically on top of Shaver. So, in that instance, it's reasonable to have the subject move away from the doorway and come to you.

Same concept as why during a felony stop officers will have the occupants of a vehicle get out and walk back to the officers: the car is unsecured and they (law enforcement) can't secure it without getting right on top of the occupants. So, make them get out and move.

a reply to: tadaman

See my response to Grambler.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


I would like someone in law enforcement to explain if having people crawl towards you is how you take someone into custody.

I was answering this question. Simple answer "No" I've never seen it done in the City I worked nor in all the times of "High Risk Stops" (misnomer) in the Bay Area of Ca. I mention these stops in particular because these are the closest to anything acceptable. In these stops, 1 Officer calls the alleged (S)-suspect back to the 'Arresting Officer' Usually after having the alleged (S)-suspect pull up on their shirt to show they don't have any weapons.


I just answered the question as it was posed w/out seeing the video. I just watch pet videos and an occasional bass fishing technique/new bait video as I believe there is "Bad Medicine" associated with these intraweb videos. There isn't a method to "unsee" abhorrent behavior and I had My fill while actually working the JOB. But it seems You found an answer already.

Vaya Con Dias

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Grambler

I answered this a few pages back but I'll reiterate it:

Tactically speaking, he was laying too close to the doorway of the room, and they had no idea if anybody else was in the room or standing in the doorway. I don't think they could see even the doorway of the room, much less into the room, without moving forward to a position that would put them practically on top of Shaver. So, in that instance, it's reasonable to have the subject move away from the doorway and come to you.

Same concept as why during a felony stop officers will have the occupants of a vehicle get out and walk back to the officers: the car is unsecured and they (law enforcement) can't secure it without getting right on top of the occupants. So, make them get out and move.

Thanks for the response.

I just have never seen officers demand someone crawl toaerds them.

On traficcic shtops, they seem to have the suspects put their hands up and wal backwards.

This makes sense; the hand arent forced to move with the motion like in crawling, and the officer would have had a look at the waist band in the front and back.

To me it makes no sense to require a suspect to have a motion where his hands are required even a little to move back towards a waste band.

A form of motion that doesnt have the hands move at all would seem much safer.

So my question is are officers trained to have people crawl to them in some instances?

That piece of s--- should be hung for what he did to that guy, absolutely no reason for it.
a reply to: notsure1

a reply to: Grambler

My assumption (and we all know how dangerous those are) is that they had him crawl because of proximity. As near as I can tell, the officers were within one room-width of Shaver. I think that Brailford was using the little "nook" for the doorway of one room for cover. So that's a floor distance of what, 20 feet maximum maybe? It's a La Quinta, so their rooms aren't huge but they're not Motel 6 size either, so I'm estimating.

But that's my assumption: they had him crawl because they were within a matter of feet from each other, and leaving him on his feet cuts into reaction time.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Grambler

My assumption (and we all know how dangerous those are) is that they had him crawl because of proximity. As near as I can tell, the officers were within one room-width of Shaver. I think that Brailford was using the little "nook" for the doorway of one room for cover. So that's a floor distance of what, 20 feet maximum maybe? It's a La Quinta, so their rooms aren't huge but they're not Motel 6 size either, so I'm estimating.

But that's my assumption: they had him crawl because they were within a matter of feet from each other, and leaving him on his feet cuts into reaction time.

Ok, then all things aside as far as guilt and everything.

As someone with law enforcement experience, would this situation be enough for you to recommend that officers not tell people to crawl toward them because it requires motion of hands, and can lead to less reaction time because a hand moving backwards in the natural motion of crawling can grab a gun faster, or be mistaken for reaching for a gun?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: StallionDuck

You do realize the officer issuing commands and the officer that did the shooting are two different officers, right?

And that some of those commands were pretty specific about not doing the exact thing that caused Shaver to get shot? For example, when Shaver initially put his hands behind his back and is told "you do that again we're shooting you," or "your hands go back to the small of your back we are going to shoot you." I feel like as a former police officer, you would've recognized those as "verbal warnings" but perhaps I'm mistaken.

Or you're just being hyperbolic in the appeal to emotion. Who knows.

I do but they were conflicting and hard to understand for a guy who was obviously scared out of his mind. That kind of adrenaline does not allow you to do things, to understand things rationally. That officer should also know this as I'm sure he had almost half as much adrenaline going through his own system. It should have been handled better.

a reply to: Liquesence

Yes, he appears to have been itching to shoot. Also, it's reported his gun is engraved with "You're F*cked."

Wow, what a piece of crap, I bet he is real charming.

Tragic.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I understand what you are saying.

I still ask, is it not then standard practice to clear the doorway of an unchecked room first?

So when the victim was first given a command, should it not have included or been in sequence to, a command to clear the doorway and lay in the desired arrest spot?

If he was told to surrender where he stood, then he could have layed there and ignored any other commands, deferring to his right to silence and non-compliance.

If the orders were incorrect or not tactically sound then the officer deviated from training, or took on a task he was not properly trained for.

Everything that "could have been in the room" was their speculation. They had 1 person down and the other totally complying and on his way.

If all of a sudden rambo realizes that there is a freaking hotel room with weapons possibly that he hasnt checked yet, then its on him if someone gets shot while he is fixing that.

There were so many ways that could have been an example of awesome police work.

Great soldiering though. Everyone made it home.

Not so great police work. -1 citizen.