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

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).

a reply to: SlapMonkey


Your long-winded defense of this BS is nullified by your statement:

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

Anyone who watches and listens to this video and comes up with your conclusion, that this isn't even an unjustified shooting, has to be a fascist POS

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: notsure1


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? Do you think that they would remain silent having witnessed such a thing, or do you think that they would rise up with others, and insist on better officer training? Do you think that the founding fathers would accept the suggestion that a judge who allows an officer to walk free after an incident like this, is impartial, or do you think they would come to the same conclusions as others, and suspect the judge of partiality?

And then I would ask you why you propose questions that do not pertain to this particular case.

I understand that you do not live in America, and that you tend to have ideological views concerning our officers, their level of authority, and even our personal self-defense laws, but not one single question pertains to this particular incident.

Yes, I think that if intelligence reported that an individual was waiving a gun around and pointing it at a highway from 50 feet up, and this individual twice made threatening movements after being told not to or they will be shot (which is appropriate as hell for the safety of the officers and others in that hotel), our founding fathers would have done exactly as these officers did.

I think that they would agree that the training was appropriate for the situation at hand. But, pray tell, what do you think that the officers should have done differently?

Yes, the judge (and jury) was impartial as to how the definition and elements of the laws pertained to the evidence. If you don't like this, oh well, but don't act like it was because of impartiality on the judge's behalf. That is a baseless accusation, unless you actually have evidence of this. Your desire to "call out partiality" doesn't matter in the face of the letter of the law.

Unlike today, our founding fathers were actually intelligent, and would take the whole picture of what happened into account instead of only hyper-focusing on the emotionally inflaming part of, "But, he was unarmed."

I cannot accept that the founders of the United States, knowing what I know of their writings and those of their contemporaries, would be against peaceful protest, even if it involved kneeling for the flag they fought to erect over the country that they founded.

They wouldn't have, but that is a different matter than that which your questions concern. You are conflating your issues with how the judge ruled and your inaccurate understandings of the laws (apparently) which a right to protest.

I believe they would find protests about this matter and others like it, to be affirmation of the flag and the principles on which the United States was founded, not a disrespect to either the flag or the country.

They might, but I believe that they would find the protests baseless in regard to this particular incident, which is what we should be discussing.

The protests like the NFL anthem kneeling is a side show--if you actually read the names that Kaepernick had on his shirt during his recent magazine cover(s), you'd see that he's woefully ignorant to how laws and personal responsibility apply to the people that he places on a pedestal. Yes, some are valid complaints, but when you lump in justified police shootings/force with the unjustified, you lose the battle of logic and reason--two things held dear by our founding fathers.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
But, pray tell, what do you think that the officers should have done differently?

Stayed calm - did not shout and scream.
The officer was sacked from his job for handling the situation poorly.

If the officer had handled the situation correctly the man would not be dead.

originally posted by: ZombieWoof
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Your long-winded defense of this BS is nullified by your statement:

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

Anyone who watches and listens to this video and comes up with your conclusion, that this isn't even an unjustified shooting, has to be a fascist POS

Okay...but only since you said so, I'll believe you.

But think about this: Even I, a civilian, have a right to defend myself from a perceived threat.

If I were to arrive home, and a neighbor said, "Hey, I saw a guy upstairs in your house pointing a rifle out of the window," you better believe that I would unholster my EDC gun and enter my house with extreme prejudice.

And then, if I confronted that person (or people, as in the case of the actual incident), even if they did not have the rifle in hand, and told them to that if they made any sudden, threatening movements or that I would shoot them--especially if I told them not to reach for the waistband or small of their back and they did it twice--you better believe that, at that point, I have every legal right to believe that my life was in danger and I could use deadly force.

If you fail to understand that or believe it, it makes no difference to me. It works the same with LEOs, in any building, except they're better trained to control the situation than I, and have more authority to confront someone like that if they were not in their own house.

But the specifics are the same, and that's what matters, that's what makes the shooting justified, and your willful ignorance on the matter is not something that I choose to concern myself with any longer.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Because handling the situation poorly, and second-degree murder are not the same thing.

Just different wording.

If I handled a situation poorly and I shot someone dead - it would be at least manslaughter.

Not if the person was drawing a weapon or you had a sincere belief that he was. And that's all that matters in the court. If it was wholly unreasonable to believe the threat existed, he would have been charged with manslaughter.

Also, he wasn't charged with manslaughter (which I also doubt you or he would successfully be convicted of in these circumstances). He was charged with second-degree murder. It's an entirely different charge requiring additional elements wholly absent here. The jury can't say, "well. I think we should charge him with manslaughter/assault/whatever based on this case". They can only rule on what he was charged with. That was second-degree murder. And now the state can't even try a manslaughter case (which again, I think would have a very slight chance of success, but better chance than murder) because they already acquired him. Prosecutorial f# up which is usually made by some asshat trying to get his name in the papers.

a reply to: notsure1
Just another pussy with a badge and a gun. You can tell the man had blood on his mind. He wanted to murder somebody that day, and when he saw how much fear he had instilled in his target, he knew who he was killing.

Its too bad, it almost seems like the PD's are looking to hire pussies to give a badge too.

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.

While keeping your hands in the air and your legs crossed.

originally posted by: KansasGirl

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.

While keeping your hands in the air and your legs crossed.

Firstly smash your face on the ground and then crawl - all the while keeping those legs crossed and arms in the air.
No wonder he failed to comply!!

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Stayed calm - did not shout and scream.
The officer was sacked from his job for handling the situation poorly.

If the officer had handled the situation correctly the man would not be dead.

Ummmmm...you understand that it was a different officer barking the orders and not Brailsford, right?

Also, one of the reasons that he was fired was because he violated police by replacing the standard-issue dust cover on his AR with one that said "YOU'RE F**KED" on the inside of it what it flipped down. As for all of the specifics, I can't access any of the documents pertaining to his termination, so all I have to go on is the generic "violations of departmental policy, including unsatisfactory performance," but nothing verifies that all of that pertained to this event, especially for "handling the situation poorly," which he did not, from what I can see.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

So who was barking conflicting orders? Where are you getting your information from?
Has the one shouting and screaming been sacked for handling the situation poorly?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: KansasGirl

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.

While keeping your hands in the air and your legs crossed.

Firstly smash your face on the ground and then crawl - all the while keeping those legs crossed and arms in the air.
No wonder he failed to comply!!

I thought that was a crazy command as well.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Glad to see that someone has caught on to reality and isn't just basing responses on feelings.



Isn't it saddening that, when something like this happens, people think that emotions and opinions supersede facts and knowledge?

a reply to: notsure1

Again and again. When will something be done. The fear they hold over people is crazy. I think if an officer is involved in the shooting of an unarmed civilian they need to have all of their personal information shared online. Let them feel fear from the people the way people are starting to fear them...

P.s. No i'm not preaching physical vengeance or violence.

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

As a bigger guy, he was most likely pulling up his pants... unfortunately the cop mistook it as a move for a weapon. It's an extremely sad situation. The cops act like we live in a war zone these days. This breaks my heart.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

A sergeant that was with Brailsford.

Trying to go down the road of "he shouldn't have been barking orders" is a complete non-starter. Loud verbal commands are issued, rather than conversational tones, for several reasons and that's not going to change. I don't think the commands themselves were the best they could have been, but there is absolutely zero wrong with the tone used.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
Nope, sorry cowards with a badge. They had multiple responding officers. One or more of those officers wanted to murder that day based on how the situation was handled. over and over, day after day, when somebody is on the ground with their #ing hands behind their back the police just #ing move in with cover from their co-workers and place cuffs on them right there.

This was the classical corrupt police knowing how to get away with murder tactic. The easiest way as a polcie to get away with murder is to make the arrest as difficult as possible. How is this done? Oh I don't know, by ordering the compliance of half a dozen different body movements in the process of approaching the officer with a weapon drawn. They know that the moment the suspect loses balance or tries to adjust they can SELL IT as "oh he was reaching, I feared for my life" and bam, all the police officers on the North American continent know to fall in line and parrot the same line and then hail the nutless coward as a hero.

I got no problem when the suspect actually has something in their hand, or they know for a fact that somebody is armed. Ok no problem. They did not know for a fact the suspect was armed, it could have been determined in any of those minutes where they were playing Dr. Seuss with their commands to play twister in the process of approaching them armed.

I hope the murderer is held to justice by a vigilante someday, and the vigilante says "I was in fear of my life" .

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I'm getting my information from actual, thorough news stories on the event. I'll quote from the source that I used in this post that has everyone's panties in a bunch:

The police video, which was released Thursday evening by Mesa police, shows Shaver was confused by some of Sgt. Charles Langley's commands when he exited his hotel room.

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.

AZ Central

The loud voice on the video yelling orders and commands was Sgt. Charles Langley. He retired.

While a LEO should be assertive and loud in order to maintain control of the situation, I actually do agree that his tone and screaming nature was making the encounter worse, not better.

a reply to: notsure1

This kind of thing scares the crap out of me.

I imagine myself in that position, trying to follow conflicting instructions, knowing I will die if I fail.

I'd rather be taken hostage by a madman.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

FWIW the press release that Mesa PD issued about it said "after a review of the incident and the internal affairs complaint...Brailsford is terminated immediately." Paraphrased that last bit, but the statement mentioned both the shooting and the IA complaint.