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: 9
84
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I think putting people into a situation where there's a likelihood of them falling over and reacting suddenly to that is pretty retarded, to be blunt. If you listen to the commands, what they wanted him to do was "walk" on his knees with his arms in the air, and straight up told him if he fell over and tried to catch himself they'd consider that a threat. In what possible realm does that even make sense?

I don't have a problem with them having him crawl towards them. I have a problem with the whole walk-on-your-knees thing. Hell, I would've been completely fine with it if they'd rushed him as soon as he dropped his head and started to crawl. There's about a dozen things they could've done or had him do, rather than the (in my opinion) absurd knee-walk approach.




posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
The men who founded the United States of America...do you think they would accept the notion that an unarmed man can be shot by an employee of the state, having done no harm, and been found guilty of no crime?

Hard to say. The whole Founding Fathers argument is kind of weak, since they lived centuries ago and not in our insanely complex modern society. Some of them might think it's bad. Some of them might think it's an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of the country and the world having a huge population, wider social sensitivities and advanced technology.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman




The victim isnt trained in how to best be arrested


This cant be said enough. The cops are supposed to be effing trained.Why is there safety more important than the average citizen?



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   
At the beginning of the video, the two "suspects" walk around the corner and the cop yells at them to stop. Stop right there. They do. The woman keeps walking for a step or two but slows down and outs her hands up to her heart, clearly surprised. Same with the guy, except he goes down to his knees and puts his hands up in the air. The cop them says "apparently we have a failure for you two to understand simple instructions." Is there video cut between them stopping in the hallway, and the cop saying they fail to understand instructions? Because it looks to me like they obeyed the instructions immediately. When a person is confronted with a situation that completely surprises them, sometimes it takes a second or two to comprehend what's happening. But in that second, where it appears they were totally surprised, they didn't do anything threatening. They obeyed orders. It looks to me like the barking officer already had his mind made up.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Tattoos mean nothing. A gun engraving means nothing. His prior actions mean nothing. Who his dad was means nothing. That is prejudice. Even though he looks like a AntiFa COD playing douche lets not assume he is a bad cop. (end sarcasm)

What means something is his voice and actions during the entire situation. He made up his mind to shoot that guy before he cleared the woman to move. He told them BOTH 40 seconds in that there is a good chance they will get shot if they do not comprehend. Degrading remarks. Psychologically he crossed his path then. It then takes 4 minutes before he shoots the guy. In 4 minutes he could not determine the guy was not a threat or have him cleared?

Some bang up police work trying to get in the room too.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   

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.


And in MY experience in such close quarters, you command the subject FACE DOWN, arms forward, palms flat on the ground, legs crossed and stay until cuffed. In all that time maneuvering both of those people, someone could have ran out of the room guns blazing while the officers were focused on the two people they, for some odd reason, needed to give long winded commands to. I can't stress how messed up the actions were that those officers took, especially issuing orders when under that kind of stress, people will almost ALWAYS mess it up under those kind of conditions. Even worse so if either of those two HAD been drinking.


There are 2 types of LEOs.

- Those who care about life

- Those who dont give a damn

Seems the officer was the latter.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman


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


Not sure what you're trying to ask, as I already explained that I believe Shaver was laying too close to the doorway for them to clear the room without having to step over and around him. He's unsecured and possibly armed, so they're not going to do that.


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?


"Stop right there" is a whole heck of a lot more succinct than "keep walking another four feet then stop" when making initial contact.


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.


The right to remain silent doesn't cover ignoring verbal commands, and I wrote a handy thread about the "right to non compliance" as you term it. Neither of those is relevant in the situation in the OP.


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.


There is no script law enforcement is given for how to deal with every situation they may encounter.


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.


Yep, and it's part of the job. You're not going to get terribly far with chastising officers responding to a man with a gun call for "speculating" that the room a guy just came out of may have other people in it, and that one of those people may be the "man with a gun" you're there for.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck


someone could have ran out of the room guns blazing


Probably why the officers weren't too keen to go up and cuff Shaver while he was laying in front of the doorway then, eh?



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Nope, then law enforcement needs higher standards of training. You cant have it both ways. I am not chastising officers in general. I am saying this guy messed up.

He should have succinctly said: Stop. Come here with your hands up, then lay down and yada yada yada.

He went through the whole song and dance and forgot about the door. Then he made the guy come to him. He started over. The F.


edit on 12 8 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Grambler

I think putting people into a situation where there's a likelihood of them falling over and reacting suddenly to that is pretty retarded, to be blunt. If you listen to the commands, what they wanted him to do was "walk" on his knees with his arms in the air, and straight up told him if he fell over and tried to catch himself they'd consider that a threat. In what possible realm does that even make sense?

I don't have a problem with them having him crawl towards them. I have a problem with the whole walk-on-your-knees thing. Hell, I would've been completely fine with it if they'd rushed him as soon as he dropped his head and started to crawl. There's about a dozen things they could've done or had him do, rather than the (in my opinion) absurd knee-walk approach.


There are not many innocent citizens that would not crap their pants if a gun is pointed at them.
If a gun was pointed at me, I would be afraid to make the wrong move and get shot as happened here.

The best move would be to freeze in one place and ignore the officers commands.
If not following their commands is enough to get shot, then we seriously need to review the procedures in place.

This was a failure at the police level if they can bark orders at a sobbing person begging for their life that instinctively makes the wrong move and dies for it.

I think in too many cases, we are also putting our shoes in the officers position rather than the citizens position.
They serve the tax paying citizens and it is from the citizens point of view we should be judging them, not from the states point of view.
edit on 8-12-2017 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

I'm not trying to have anything both ways. I've point blank said the verbal commands weren't great, and certainly weren't what I would have used.

There were six officers in the hallway. The officer who's body-cam we have video from was covering Shaver, who was directly in front of the door he came out of. Why you seem to think the officer couldn't see the area Shaver was laying in while covering Shaver is beyond me, frankly. If anybody had come around that corner, I'm pretty certain that officer would've seen them since...y'know, he was looking right at it.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001

I'd rather judge incidents from the position of law, rather than the position of opinions and feelings.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: notsure1

No, this was not a murder.

No, he did NOT comply with every order given.

He was shot because, after the LEO told his specifically not to reach back to the small of his back again or else they will shoot him, he decided, for whatever reason, to reach up to the right side of his waistband while crawling toward the officers. To any intelligent civilian (jurors, perhaps?) who can see, this is a movement that happens quite often right before someone pulls out a firearm and shoots at officers. This is the movement that officers are exactly trained to look for in assessing a potential life-threatening action, and this movement was what was specifically told by the officer to Mr. Shaver exactly what not to do or that they would open fire.

While this is a very sad event, this is not murder. Any time that you are confronted by officers who show up at your door on a call concerning a report of weapons, you would be smart NOT to reach for your waistband, especially after being told specifically not to or that you would be shot.

But, let's present this story as it should, without implying that the officers knew that it was an airsoft rifle.

From AZ Central:

The shooting occurred after police were called to a Mesa La Quinta Inn & Suites on a report of a person pointing a gun out a fifth-floor window. A couple in a hotel hot tub told staff they saw a silhouette with a gun pointed toward a nearby highway.

There is no evidence that the witness, who saw him waiving the rifle around from a fifth-floor window and pointing it toward the highway, should have known or expected it to be a fake rifle...who waives any rifle, fake or not, out their fifth-floor hotel window? The witness was absolutely justified in notifying the front desk, who was absolutely justified in notifying the police, who were absolutely justified in arriving prepared to encounter a person or persons in a mindset to meet the officers with deadly force.

If the officers had approached the situation and other way, it would have been wrong.


At one point, while Shaver was on his knees, he put his hands behind his back and was ordered to put his hands back up in the air.

Langley, one of six officers in the hallway and who has since retired from the force and moved to the Philippines, warned Shaver would get shot if he put his hands down again, the video shows.

Shaver began to cry and said, "Please don't shoot me."

Trying to follow Langley's commands, Shaver began to crawl on his hands and knees toward the officers, the video shows. But Shaver stopped crawling and raised his right hand near his waistband, prompting Brailsford to fire.

Look, it is terrible that it takes a human life to teach this lesson, but this is everything what NOT to do. Shaver NEVER should have reached to the small of his back the first time, but that's excusable. But, when the officer tells you not to do it again or they will open fire, why in the hell do you stop mid-crawl and reach up with your right hand to your waistband, ESPECIALLY if you don't have a weapon on you?

This is tragic, but your OP is misleading--this is not murder (obviously), and if you think that this incident justifies protests against officers, you are either choosing to ignore reality in this situation, are ignorant to appropriate training for these instances, or viewing this death through the lenses of logical fallacies. This officer did everything right in this instance, per their training, and I agree with him that if he were to encounter the exact same scenario with the same knowledge at the time, his actions would have been exactly the same.

Like is noted--it's tragic, but it's not murder, nor was it an unjustified shooting.

I'll tell you this, though--when, in a murder trial, the jury only deliberates for six hours before coming to a unanimous decision, that tells you all that you need to know about how the law pertains to the incident. The prosecutors were wrong to try this case and ruin this officer's career (and, most likely, private life as well).


You can say that, but uh -- he asked him to crawl. If you don't want someone moving, or to put hands near waist bands -- then you tell them lay face down with their hands out, and you approach them.

I saw the video, it looks like the man lost his balance a little and went to adjust his pants, because crawling on all fours has a tendency to displace them.

This was clear cut murder and he had no business to demand the victim crawl in the first place. All over a report of a pellet gun locked in a case.


Police can't claim fear when they gave the victim a command that induced fear. Had he told him lay on the ground arms out, he wouldn't have left that position. The unlawful command to crawl is what created this error.

edit on 8-12-2017 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: tadaman

I'm not trying to have anything both ways. I've point blank said the verbal commands weren't great, and certainly weren't what I would have used.

There were six officers in the hallway. The officer who's body-cam we have video from was covering Shaver, who was directly in front of the door he came out of. Why you seem to think the officer couldn't see the area Shaver was laying in while covering Shaver is beyond me, frankly. If anybody had come around that corner, I'm pretty certain that officer would've seen them since...y'know, he was looking right at it.


Can we agree on one thing?
The whole purpose was to bring these people to a courtroom for justice. Alive, guilty or innocent.
They FAILED to do that.

In almost anything in life, if we fail to reach predetermined goals, then we have to go back to the drawing board and make some changes.

An innocent person died, so the responsibility for change rests on those attempting to serve justice.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   
I don't care what you say that was bull#.

This is disgusting and if you support that police officers words and actions your a scumbag.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: jacobe001

I'd rather judge incidents from the position of law, rather than the position of opinions and feelings.


The problem with the position of law is it usually favors state actors and heavy contributors to the law makers as we see in this country. And if the laws get in the way of potential benefactors, then the law makers, amend, repeal, or make news laws to make things go their way.

Our laws in this country are very corrupt and have nothing to do with morals or what is right and just either.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   
This is shocking and terribly sad.


I will find the go fund me page.


In this country, unless a cop kills in cold blood their NEVER convicted.


Like the cop in South Carolina that shot a man in the back and murdered him just got only 20 years.

We are in a police state.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I get that the person speaking was a separate person from the body cam.

I understand that they had the concern about the doorway.

They failed to act as a team by one officer not issuing commands properly to the person being arrested so as to get them into a place where his team could secure them safely.

The cop that shot WAS justified in that the victim did reach behind his back at the waistline.
I never denied that.

Maybe he should have had a taser instead of an assault rifle if he was the one who was also going to secure him. Maybe someone else points live ammo while he is being cuffed.

I dont know.

edit on 12 8 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
This is shocking and terribly sad.


I will find the go fund me page.


In this country, unless a cop kills in cold blood their NEVER convicted.


Like the cop in South Carolina that shot a man in the back and murdered him just got only 20 years.

We are in a police state.


It is a police state and those enforcing it will never see it that way, because it is their bread and butter.
That would not be a law enforcement officer if they had a problem with it, so they have to justify what their doing since it is their livelihood.
edit on 8-12-2017 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001

I said way back on page like....two, maybe three, that I didn't think this was handled well and that it wasn't a good shoot so...yes?



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join