Video Shows Officer Fatally Shooting Unarmed, Pleading Man

[macrosslover]

5 minutes ago, ctebah said:

So, he deserve to die because he moved?

Nobody has said he deserved to die.  It's  tragic shoot either way, but one that happened because he didn't follow instructions.  Being a good shoot does not mean that person deserved to die.

[ctebah]

2 minutes ago, macrosslover said:

Nobody has said he deserved to die.  It's  tragic shoot either way, but one that happened because he didn't follow instructions.  Being a good shoot does not mean that person deserved to die.

But he died.  And this is not the first time a cop, in the US, overreacted and a person ended up dead.  There have been numerous incidents such as this one and the same excuses come out every single time.  

 

Short of attacking a police officer, a person should never be sentenced to death for not complying.  This was 100% an execution.

[xendrome]

21 minutes ago, ctebah said:

So, he deserve to die because he moved?

He deserved whatever happened to him based upon his actions and non-compliant behavior. The officers that respond to the scene of this type of incident have no idea what they are getting into with a suspect and no idea if he has a weapon behind his back. It's not worth the risk for them to not go home to their families that night because they took 3 seconds longer to think about neutralizing this guy. It's a dangerous job, and often they are put into this situation.

[The Evil Overlord]

3 minutes ago, xendrome said:

He deserved whatever happened to him based upon his actions and non-compliant behavior. The officers that respond to the scene of this type of incident have no idea what they are getting into with a suspect and no idea if he has a weapon behind his back. It's not worth the risk for them to not go home to their families that night because they took 3 seconds longer to think about neutralizing this guy. It's a dangerous job, and often they are put into this situation.

You have seen the moments before he was actually shot right, his voice and actions led me to think he was in a state of panic. I would have thought there was training to help diffuse that...

[ctebah]

4 minutes ago, xendrome said:

He deserved whatever happened to him based upon his actions and non-compliant behavior. The officers that respond to the scene of this type of incident have no idea what they are getting into with a suspect and no idea if he has a weapon behind his back. It's not worth the risk for them to not go home to their families that night because they took 3 seconds longer to think about neutralizing this guy. It's a dangerous job, and often they are put into this situation.

Why is it not worth the risk?

 

Law enforcement agencies around the world take risks every day and aren't ending up with dead cops.  This seems to be the issue only in the US.

 

The gun culture in the states makes these kinds of justifications so easy, and it's so wrong.  This isn't the wild west any more.  Not complying with the cops doesn't mean you deserve to die.  The entire world is laughing at you.

[macrosslover]

17 minutes ago, ctebah said:

But he died.  And this is not the first time a cop, in the US, overreacted and a person ended up dead.  There have been numerous incidents such as this one and the same excuses come out every single time.  

 

Short of attacking a police officer, a person should never be sentenced to death for not complying.  This was 100% an execution.

You're entitled to your opinion, which is all it is now, since the legal system has already determined that he didn't overreact and this was not 100% an execution.  I'm sure you'll say the decision was wrong and the jury was stupid for not seeing it your way, but you're going to have to get in line behind everybody else who disagrees with any decision made in the criminal courts.

[ctebah]

2 minutes ago, macrosslover said:

You're entitled to your opinion, which is all it is now, since the legal system has already determined that he didn't overreact and this was not 100% an execution.  I'm sure you'll say the decision was wrong and the jury was stupid for not seeing it your way, but you're going to have to get in line behind everybody else who disagrees with any decision made in the criminal courts.

Yes, thank you for stating how debates work.

[The Evil Overlord]

1 hour ago, macrosslover said:

You're entitled to your opinion, which is all it is now, since the legal system has already determined that he didn't overreact and this was not 100% an execution.  I'm sure you'll say the decision was wrong and the jury was stupid for not seeing it your way, but you're going to have to get in line behind everybody else who disagrees with any decision made in the criminal courts.

Oh I've said that to some morons elsewhere, about idiots who run into Sikh temples in both US and Canada, demanding to know why they prefer sharia law and why they let terrorists run rampant

When the governing bodies aren't involved that should be a first clue. Obviously the fact that Sikhism shares very little, if any, similarities with Islam.

 

All of my posts here are simply opinion, speculation, and hindsight, I freely admit it

[Seahorsepip Veteran]

12 minutes ago, macrosslover said:

but you're going to have to get in line behind everybody else who disagrees with any decision made in the criminal courts.

Just for the record, it was a decision in an US court so as a non US citizen I'm more than happy to disagree that a US court ruling stating "that it wasn't murder" makes it a fact and the truth.

Because it's not, the fact that the court ruled it wasn't murder only makes me more worried about gun violence in the US and doesn't proof that the officer was innocent in any way in my opinion.

 

I have to admit I didn't expect to see people defend both sides of the discussion in this topic, the fact that we have members with opposite points of view is what makes discussions interesting on Neowin.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

52 minutes ago, Seahorsepip said:

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?

 

Complete assumption ... I believe they were making him crawl because of the location of his room (out of sight) ... probably to avoid being ambushed by another party.  Just my hunch since the police never approached the room (instead yelling commands from down the hall).

[The Evil Overlord]

Just now, Jim K said:

Complete assumption ... I believe they were making him crawl because of the location of his room (out of sight) ... probably to avoid being ambushed by another party.  Just my hunch since the police never approached the room (instead yelling commands from down the hall).

Yes but again, there were 2 officers (at least) once the woman was cuffed and restrained, why not have the officer NOT facing the man down with the gun, then go and make sure Daniel Shaver was neutralised without resorting to a weapons discharge? (or 5 in this case)

[Emn1ty]

24 minutes ago, Seahorsepip said:

Just for the record, it was a decision in an US court so as a non US citizen I'm more than happy to disagree that a US court ruling stating "that it wasn't murder" makes it a fact and the truth.

Because it's not, the fact that the court ruled it wasn't murder only makes me more worried about gun violence in the US and doesn't proof that the officer was innocent in any way in my opinion.

 

I have to admit I didn't expect to see people defend both sides of the discussion in this topic, the fact that we have members with opposite points of view is what makes discussions interesting on Neowin.

A common misconception is that a ruling in court means it's a fact. That's not the case, just because he's not in jail doesn't mean he did the right thing. It means he didn't doing something illegal.

[Seahorsepip Veteran]

4 minutes ago, Jim K said:

Complete assumption ... I believe they were making him crawl because of the location of his room (out of sight) ... probably to avoid being ambushed by another party.  Just my hunch since the police never approached the room (instead yelling commands from down the hall).

That makes sense though I wonder how making people crawl and cry while shouting and threatening them with their life seems like a solution in the given situation.

[Emn1ty]

1 minute ago, Seahorsepip said:

That makes sense though I wonder how making people crawl and cry while shouting and threatening them with their life seems like a solution in the given situation.

When you have no idea what to expect and could potentially have gunfire on you because of said unknowns that seems like a reason. This isn't like they just showed up and decided to pull their guns for no reason, cops typically only pull firearms when they believe there is a possibility of armed response or danger to their lives. Hence why they stayed down the hall, and why they had guns drawn before they even showed up.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

8 minutes ago, The Evil Overlord said:

Yes but again, there were 2 officers (at least) once the woman was cuffed and restrained, why not have the officer NOT facing the man down with the gun, then go and make sure Daniel Shaver was neutralised without resorting to a weapons discharge? (or 5 in this case)

I'm not sure they knew those were the only two (there was a third party that had went back to his room...iirc).  So, I'm guessing they wanted the two to crawl away from the room (to get out of the rooms line of sight).

 

Once again ... just my desktop investigative services working overtime.   

 

3 minutes ago, Seahorsepip said:

That makes sense though I wonder how making people crawl and cry while shouting and threatening them with their life seems like a solution in the given situation.

I agree ... the whole video/situation is extremely sad.

[Rippleman]

4 hours ago, alpha2beta said:

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.

I agree,,, my first comment was based on the action of quick movements and that action alone.

[Seahorsepip Veteran]

7 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

When you have no idea what to expect and could potentially have gunfire on you because of said unknowns that seems like a reason. This isn't like they just showed up and decided to pull their guns for no reason, cops typically only pull firearms when they believe there is a possibility of armed response or danger to their lives. Hence why they stayed down the hall, and why they had guns drawn before they even showed up.

I get the reasoning of the cops int this situation but I don't get the way the situation was handled, disabling a possibly armed suspect shouldn't be equal to executing a crying crawling man.

 

And of course there is a risk in being a cop, that doesn't mean lethal force is justified to prevent being at risk every single time there is a risk, that would make every police squad a hit squad considering the fact that there is always a risk.

 

The job of the police is to protect and serve the people which includes protecting a suspect from himself.

[Emn1ty]

1 minute ago, Seahorsepip said:

I get the reasoning of the cops int this situation but I don't get the way the situation was handled, disabling a possibly armed suspect shouldn't be equal to executing a crying crawling man.

I agree it's a terrible outcome, but if someone keeps reaching for their waist and obstructing your view of their hands when you've repeatedly told them not to you have to make a choice. I'm not saying I agree with the choice made, but then again I am speaking from hindsight and from the safety of a computer screen. This guy was there and had to deal with a potentially life threatening action being taken against either himself or his fellow officers.

It's a tragedy, but it's in no way a murder. I don't agree with the "we'll shoot you" statements, however even without that this guy was terribly poor at following clearly stated instructions. Instructions that the other person was easily able to follow without issue.

[Emn1ty]

6 minutes ago, Seahorsepip said:

And of course there is a risk in being a cop, that doesn't mean lethal force is justified to prevent being at risk every single time there is a risk, that would make every police squad a hit squad considering the fact that there is always a risk.

I didn't really want to make the argue that it was necessarily justified, but those decisions are an eventuality. And no, it doesn't make them a "hit squad". I didn't say they can just shoot people because they think there's a risk. It took multiple reaches to his waistband before they fired on him, in many cases they allow only one before they fire. The officer fairly clearly explained why he should not reach behind his back again.

6 minutes ago, Seahorsepip said:

The job of the police is to protect and serve the people which includes protecting a suspect from himself.

Yes, however it also includes protecting other civilians, his fellow officers and himself.

[Seahorsepip Veteran]

13 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

The officer fairly clearly explained why he should not reach behind his back again.

I have to agree on that and think that the problem is not the decision to fire based on repeated failed instructions but that the officers failed to understand the emotional effect of their actions and mental state of the suspect.

 

It's their job to stabilize and cool down a dangerous situation but they completely failed to do that and did the opposite by emotionally scaring, assaulting and disorienting the suspect.

As I said before it's their job to protect and serve citizens including the suspect, they didn't protect or serve the suspect but mentally and verbally assaulted him before physically assaulting him resulting in his dead.

 

The situation has been grossly mishandled, the suspect was a citizen with rights not an enemy of the state during a military mission.

 

So yes I think both officers have some responsibility in the events resulting to the tragic dead, personally I think that responsibility was high enough to consider it murder but I know that other people will disagree with that.

Though I think we can all probably agree that the officers have some responsibility in the events that lead to this tragic ending and should be held accountable in some way in my opinion.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

This thread has been a very positive back and forth discussion about a sad and complicated situation.  There were no winners, a man is dead and his family and friends are dealing with the loss.  An officer of the law had to make a split second decision and must now live with it for the rest of his life (please, no "well at least he is alive" remarks).

 

I enjoyed hearing others thoughts and opinions without the nastiness or bickering.   

[alpha2beta]

2 hours 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.

Good god I will keep note to stay hell away from you.

[The Evil Overlord]

Snide remake incoming

I find it interesting that some comments have been thumbed down for their opinion. I have refrained from answering some of the comments on the grounds to avoid bickering, but my observation here is the fact that some feel so self-righteous that the police are beyond reproach. This should never be the case, they are supposed to be law enforcement and civil servants. These last few years have done more for international opinion to lead towards the contrary. 

[The Evil Overlord]

1 hour ago, xendrome said:

He deserved whatever happened to him based upon his actions and non-compliant behavior. The officers that respond to the scene of this type of incident have no idea what they are getting into with a suspect and no idea if he has a weapon behind his back. It's not worth the risk for them to not go home to their families that night because they took 3 seconds longer to think about neutralizing this guy. It's a dangerous job, and often they are put into this situation.

That's a rather aggressive standpoint. And poor panicking Daniel has to lose his life and not go home to his family for those same 3 seconds?

An armed standoff I would have understood and fully agreed. 

[+Raze Subscriber²]

18 hours ago, The Evil Overlord said:

Snide remake incoming

I find it interesting that some comments have been thumbed down for their opinion. I have refrained from answering some of the comments on the grounds to avoid bickering, but my observation here is the fact that some feel so self-righteous that the police are beyond reproach. This should never be the case, they are supposed to be law enforcement and civil servants. These last few years have done more for international opinion to lead towards the contrary. 

 

There is no doubt  there are major problems with some aspects of law enforcement in the US.  In some cases tight budgets can sadly limit some municipalities from providing thorough, in-depth training and background checks.  Financial limits make it difficult for cities to hire the best and most qualified.  Some unfortunate compromises have been made resulting in in less than ideal staffing of personnel.  The fear officers may experience in some cities that see high crime rates and extreme gang violence can put them on edge.  The daily stress of dealing with an incredibly variety of situations is enormous and some agencies may not be able to provide sufficient counseling services.

 

The vast majority of law enforcement officers in the US do an incredible job.  We often don't here about their positive, even heroic, efforts nor about other activities they get involved with in their communities.  We do hear about the tragedies.  Some involve officers doing their job and doing it right, even those that result in a death.  Sometimes there is simply no choice and a violent act occurs that nobody wants to happen.

 

And there are some officers (a very, very small minority) who seem hell bent on purposely escalating an already bad situation.  We've read and seen it too many times.

 

With all the terrible incidents occurring around the US I have no doubt that law enforcement agencies are working to improve their policing and enforcement efforts.