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.
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?
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.
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.
someone could have ran out of the room guns blazing
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.