Video Shows Officer Fatally Shooting Unarmed, Pleading Man

[alpha2beta]

2 hours ago, DocM said:

 

Sorry to disagree, but it is not clear. There are inside the waistband holsters for very small weapons like the Ruger LCP which could hide it inside the pants and not be easily seen at that distance.  Extra points if the tail of his shirt covers his belt. My wife has an LCP and it's so small it can be hidden in a bra holster.

 

This is not the smallest of the concealable carry weapons, but it can drop you dead as Caesar. .

 

 

 

You seriously think the guy would have enough time to pull out a gun and shoot the cop when he has a AR-15 aimed point bank at him? Come on get real! The Cop started shooting after you could clearly see his hand had nothing in it and plus how the hell could you aim a gun when looking at the floor. The jury was ######## retarded!

Edited December 10, 2017 by alpha2beta

[The Evil Overlord]

4 hours ago, DocM said:

 

Sorry to disagree, but it is not clear. There are inside the waistband holsters for very small weapons like the Ruger LCP which could hide it inside the pants and not be easily seen at that distance.  Extra points if the tail of his shirt covers his belt. My wife has an LCP and it's so small it can be hidden in a bra holster.

 

This is not the smallest of the concealable carry weapons, but it can drop you dead as Caesar. .

 

 

 

Sorry doc, I'm not one to disagree with you often, but a tac suited officer is wearing more protection than the guy on his knees, if the officer was not wearing any kind of protection whatsoever, then I'd fully agree with you, as they'd potentially be on an even ground as far as the weapons were concerned. Anonymous went ahead and stated no weapons were found on his person. (Whether it's true or not, I don't actually know)

Although I have never been in such a life-threatening situation, I do however, understand panic, your mind is working a hundred miles an hour, your thought are so Jumbled and rocketing by that you can lose where you are. You make mistakes because your thought pattern is disjointed...

[Rippleman]

This is only a comment on one part. If someone is reported to have a gun, and makes a quick action to reach behind their body, it should be assumed that they are reaching for their weapon. He was not wrong to assume the threat. Police see this exact scenario time and time again with very deadly consequences. When YOUR life is on the line, you HAVE to assume the worst. 

I will say that they should have handled it much differently. From only what we can see, it was clear they could have secured the situation with the man down on the ground with fingers interlocked. The cop should lose his badge for that reason alone IMO. It is terrible someone lost their life, Situations should be handled better to not give way to possible misjudgments and confusion like the one in this video. 

[alpha2beta]

26 minutes ago, Rippleman said:

This is only a comment on one part. If someone is reported to have a gun, and makes a quick action to reach behind their body, it should be assumed that they are reaching for their weapon. He was not wrong to assume the threat. Police see this exact scenario time and time again with very deadly consequences. When YOUR life is on the line, you HAVE to assume the worst. 

I will say that they should have handled it much differently. From only what we can see, it was clear they could have secured the situation with the man down on the ground with fingers interlocked. The cop should lose his badge for that reason alone IMO. It is terrible someone lost their life, Situations should be handled better to not give way to possible misjudgments and confusion like the one in this video. 

There was more then one cop, what should have happened was one cop aimed the AR-15 at man while he had his legs crossed and hands on floor while the other cop should have WALKED up to the man check for weapons and cuffed him while the other cops searched the room. Would that have been so hard to do? Daniel Shaver was plenty far enough away from the door in case someone else was in the room with weapons.  Philip Brailsford should of never had him crawl, remember less movement on the suspect the better for everyone.  This was all done wrong at so many levels. But sure enough the officer was U.S. Army in Afghanistan treating US citizens like we are the enemy.

[trag3dy]

9 hours ago, Mirumir said:

Former Officer Brailsford thought he was playing a video game. He definitely has a problem with those "protect the hostages" missions.

 

My perception of time could be different, but it seemed to me that they had plenty of time.

 

I've watched many videos of this sort, the pattern is the same.

 

Crazy trigger-happy cops (who should never have been recruited in the first place) arrive at a scene all pumped up. They purposefully abuse their authority, give complex and conflicting messages to their victims in order to confuse them so they can have an excuse to pull their triggers, act in a completely unprofessional manner, lose it first themselves, start screaming like girls, and then shoot multiple times to kill without giving a warning shot.

 

How can they be acquitted of any wrongdoing is beyond my understanding.

Not saying I disagree with you but police do not ever give warning shots and rightfully so. From what it sounds like this was at an apartment complex. Where would you propose he shoot to give this warning ? Anywhere he shot to could unintentionally involve another person - bullets don't just stop instantly upon contact with any random object.

[alpha2beta]

9 hours ago, Mirumir said:

Former Officer Brailsford thought he was playing a video game. He definitely has a problem with those "protect the hostages" missions.

 

My perception of time could be different, but it seemed to me that they had plenty of time.

 

I've watched many videos of this sort, the pattern is the same.

 

Crazy trigger-happy cops (who should never have been recruited in the first place) arrive at a scene all pumped up. They purposefully abuse their authority, give complex and conflicting messages to their victims in order to confuse them so they can have an excuse to pull their triggers, act in a completely unprofessional manner, lose it first themselves, start screaming like girls, and then shoot multiple times to kill without giving a warning shot.

 

How can they be acquitted of any wrongdoing is beyond my understanding.

I agree with everything you said except the warning shot.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

28 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

Not saying I disagree with you but police do not ever give warning shots and rightfully so.

Yeah, what's up with that? Not even in the open air?

[trag3dy]

7 minutes ago, Mirumir said:

Yeah, what's up with that? Not even in the open air?

Physics man. What goes up must come down.

 

And anyways, most apartment complexes around here have covered walkways and multiple stories.

Edited December 10, 2017 by trag3dy

[alpha2beta]

2 minutes ago, Mirumir said:

Yeah, what's up with that? Not even in the open air?

Having a gun aimed at you is more then enough of a warning. Remember cops are trained "shoot to kill"

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Ok, I get it, you don't do warning shots in the U.S. 

 

Case closed.

 

Spoiler

In Russia, cops are obliged to make a warning shot up in the air before shooting.

 

 

[trag3dy]

Just now, Mirumir said:

Ok, I get it, you don't do warning shots in the U.S. 

 

Case closed.

 

 

I'm pretty sure no warning shots is standard operating procedure for police all over the world. Because like I said, there is so much potential there for involving innocent bystander's unintentionally, especially in a place like an apartment complex where pretty much any direction you choose to point your gun people would be there.

[Emn1ty]

4 hours ago, warwagon said:

That cop had some major issues, he was yelling at him even as he's complying with everything he was saying. That video is obviously clear that he was going shoot that guy no matter what. He had an itchy trigger finger. I'm actually surprised he didn't shoot the guy sooner. If that guy had farted he would have shot him.

Actually, based on my understanding of how these exchanges go, this is fairly standard language. If you notice the woman cooperated flawlessly, raised her hands and crawled toward them with her hands still raised. This guy continued to lower his hands despite being told not to. He even put them behind his back once putting the officers on edge.

 

Cops use very strong, authoritative language. That's just how it works. They aren't asking you to do something when they are worried about a firearm (even a pellet gun) you do not abstruct their view of your hands. Ever. He did it several times.

 

2 hours ago, SierraSonic said:

There was no point in making the man crawl forward, the cops could have approached when they had him spread out on the floor. Everything that extended this situation was a liability to everyone's safety. Most of these videos are from people who can't follow commands because they are either inebriated or not capable to do so, and police training clearly lacks proper situational awareness training. Why does every officer in a large group have to have a weapon out? Can't a few go in with Taser's and get an order to shoot first during approach? The guns could be used as a secondary attack based an increase in danger or when a different command is issued. I'm sure most people would rather someone be shot with a Taser when on the ground spread out over dying while being told to crawl forward because they tripped or picked up their pants.

There are several doors in this hallway, they had no understanding or visibility of those rooms. They were having them move to a secured location, in fact this was exactly how it was demonstrated in training while doing a pull-over for a stolen vehicle. They asked the man to exit the vehicle, kneel, raise both his hands before having him stand and walk towards them slowly. If I recall they even commanded him on when to take a step forward and when not to; all the while using similarly forceful language.

 

Also keep in mind they did ask if they'd been drinking and were told no. Sure, they don't have to believe that but if you're about to get shot why would you lie about drinking? If the reason they were there or they were aware prior to coming that he had a firearm then they are going to bring out their own firearms as well to protect themselves and others around.

All this being said I agree he fired far too soon, but why he was acquitted should be apparent in the video.

2 hours ago, Raze said:

No matter how others spin this, the officer was acting in a manner that escalated the situation.  The man that was killed was obviously scared and confused and the cop was acting like a power-tripping bully.  Yes officers have to act quickly to protect themselves, but this officer was ridiculous with his commands.  IMO it was murder.  I realize I was not present at the trial, but I seriously doubt I would believe differently after seeing the video.  These types of situations happen far to often in the US and it shows something is very wrong with how some officers deal so poorly with such events.

I will agree that the only language used that shouldn't have been used was "we are going to shoot you". That isn't going to help matters and will further panic the individual. However, that doesn't really excuse the number of times he disobeyed commands that were extremely clear, in fact almost ranted about. The other person cooperated perfectly and as a result was not shot.

Again, I don't really know what you should be doing in this situation. I hate "what if" scenarios being a driver of if you shoot someone or not, cause that's what a potential reach for a firearm is. But then the question is... if he was reaching for a weapon and the officer hadn't fired would that have been a more ideal result?

 

End of the day, he's out of the job permanently. He can't do this again.

[Yogurth]

The tragedy shows how simple-minded, psychologically untrained and unstable people end as police officers, legally carrying weapons and getting away with manslaughter. 

 

Even if he was not guilty in the eyes of the law, he should have recognized a panic attack the victim was going through. He probably did not hear nor understand what the officer was telling him. In a situation like this one, the one suffering the anxiety attack has very little control over his limbs, I doubt that he was able to process the commands he was given let alone follow them.

[trag3dy]

26 minutes ago, Yogurth said:

The tragedy shows how simple-minded, psychologically untrained and unstable people end as police officers, legally carrying weapons and getting away with manslaughter. 

 

Even if he was not guilty in the eyes of the law, he should have recognized a panic attack the victim was going through. He probably did not hear nor understand what the officer was telling him. In a situation like this one, the one suffering the anxiety attack has very little control over his limbs, I doubt that he was able to process the commands he was given let alone follow them.

I'm not saying I disagree with you but a person having a panic attack can exhibit similar signs as a person who is on a lot of different drugs, legal or otherwise.

 

I haven't followed this case but try looking at it from the officer's perspective. The person is behaving irregularly and then reaches for their waist where they might have a concealed gun or knife. Waiting to react even one second is the difference between life and death.

 

 

[The Evil Overlord]

8 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

I'm not saying I disagree with you but a person having a panic attack can exhibit similar signs as a person who is on a lot of different drugs, legal or otherwise.

 

I haven't followed this case but try looking at it from the officer's perspective. The person is behaving irregularly and then reaches for their waist where they might have a concealed gun or knife. Waiting to react even one second is the difference between life and death.

 

 

A part of me wishes to stay out of this topic, but just as an observation, and nothing else, I would assume a cop armed with what others have said was an ar15, is surely a special response unit member, and is wearing body armour. His chances of being fatally wounded in my opinion are far less than if he was not wearing any. And it was that point I was hung up on.

[trag3dy]

5 minutes ago, The Evil Overlord said:

A part of me wishes to stay out of this topic, but just as an observation, and nothing else, I would assume a cop armed with what others have said was an ar15, is surely a special response unit member, and is wearing body armour. His chances of being fatally wounded in my opinion are far less than if he was not wearing any. And it was that point I was hung up on.

Consider that the cop isn't the only person there. You are in the middle of an apartment complex full of people. Most of them completely oblivious to what's going on.

 

The danger isn't necessarily to the police officer but to others around them. Your focus is much to narrow.

[The Evil Overlord]

2 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

Consider that the cop isn't the only person there. You are in the middle of an apartment complex full of people. Most of them completely oblivious to what's going on.

 

The danger isn't necessarily to the police officer but to others around them. Your focus is much to narrow.

You are correct, but then (from personal experience of unarmed police encounters) most people would open their door, realise it has nothing to do with them and mind their business. Sometimes a passerby might ask a few questions regarding what happened later....

 

On a slightly related note.

I'll save people the trouble of posting this

I wasn't there, so I don't know the full story.

[Yogurth]

16 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

I'm not saying I disagree with you but a person having a panic attack can exhibit similar signs as a person who is on a lot of different drugs, legal or otherwise.

 

I haven't followed this case but try looking at it from the officer's perspective. The person is behaving irregularly and then reaches for their waist where they might have a concealed gun or knife. Waiting to react even one second is the difference between life and death.

 

 

In the beginning of the video when the officer is still calm explaining the procedure, the victim is calm and his voice is not trembling and he is compliant or at least he tries to. His back are fully visible and since it is all soft sweat cotton gun bulge should be visible which it isn't. When the officer loses control for the first time and threatens with life, the victim is clearly going into panic attack, sobbing and pleading.

 

It is easy for us to see these details from the video, they may not have been as easy to see for the officer, but he should have been trained to recognize the situation, remain calm and guide the victim, which he clearly was not and it ended in killing an unarmed innocent man.

[trag3dy]

11 minutes ago, The Evil Overlord said:

You are correct, but then (from personal experience of unarmed police encounters) most people would open their door, realise it has nothing to do with them and mind their business. Sometimes a passerby might ask a few questions regarding what happened later....

 

On a slightly related note.

I'll save people the trouble of posting this

I wasn't there, so I don't know the full story.

It doesn't matter what those other people are doing or where they are in this context. Depending on the caliber of the gun a bullet is perfectly capable of going through 2 or 3 or even more walls, even brick walls.

 

The point is, police officers in situations like this have a lot to take into consideration and not a lot of time to do it in. And that old saying... hindsight see's the furthest. It's easy to see what they should have done after it happened, but while it's happening...

[The Evil Overlord]

6 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

It doesn't matter what those other people are doing or where they are in this context. Depending on the caliber of the gun a bullet is perfectly capable of going through 2 or 3 or even more walls, even brick walls.

 

The point is, the officer has a lot to take into consideration and not a lot of time to do it in. And that old saying... hindsight see's the furthest.

Ok, but we were talking about an ar15 vs a small handgun

 

edit

 

sorry, I should have said potentially, a small handgun

[trag3dy]

Just now, The Evil Overlord said:

Ok, but we were talking about an ar15 vs a small handgun

As far as police officers making quick decisions goes the kind of guns in play are completely irrelevant.

[The Evil Overlord]

2 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

As far as police officers making quick decisions goes the kind of guns in play are completely irrelevant.

I don't disagree, (like I mentioned earlier, I have never  been in such a life threatening situation, not was I there...)

But I do feel an armed officer's training needs some sort of overhaul

[xendrome]

Good shoot, glad the body camera video shows he was not complying. When you don't know what a suspect has on him and he makes moves for something in his waistband/back, that's a no no. Had he complied none of this would have happened.

[ctebah]

1 minute ago, xendrome said:

Good shoot, glad the body camera video shows he was not complying. When you don't know what a suspect has on him and he makes moves for something in his waistband/back, that's a no no. Had he complied none of this would have happened.

So, he deserve to die because he moved?

[Seahorsepip Veteran]

Why did they need to crawl in the first place?

It doesn't make sense, I would walk towards them and simply arrest them while another officers holds them under fire, if necessary order them to stand against the wall with their hands up.

 

There are so many ways to arrest them without the absurd crawling instructions.

 

Besides why did he need to shoot with sharp and lethal - non rubber - bullets 5 times?

And why is the police carrying such heavy assault weapons for a single gun report in the first place?

 

The cop would be found guilty to murder in probably most countries but for some reason it starts to look like cops are a protected entity in america