Disagree. It's what got the situation started.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Printable View
Disagree. It's what got the situation started.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
The air rifles could have been easily confused for something larger. If they stayed in their cases, multiple hotel guests don't raise the alarm which started this shit storm.
Master of the Obvious statement from me on this situation - Windows work both ways.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...70ddce0273.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...e5ade90030.jpg
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
Been a while since I have chimed in on anything, But why didn't they simply detain him when he was down responding to commands in the way in which he was being ordered? This officer needs to be offline and gone. Frankly, should have been charged. If you make someone play twister long enough, they are going to put the left hand on the red circle at sometime.
Modern LE training teaches that when you're in a tactically advantageous position, you bring the suspect to you, not go to them, for officer safety reasons. The execution of this was problematic (I've never been trained to have them do this on their knees or crawling, but I wasn't there, so I can't speak to their reasons) in this particular case.Quote:
Originally Posted by palepainter
The argument isn't whether or not Daniel Shaver made any bad decisions. He clearly did. Some of those preceded and even precipitated the police presence. The worst decision he made was to comply with instructions that made no sense. The job of the police was to deescalate the situation and detain an individual to determine if a crime had taken place. They did exactly the opposite of that with no necessity.
The police made worse decisions than Daniel Shaver: overcomplicated instructions, overcomplicated detainment procedures, having him crawl (unorthodox) vs standing and walking slowly with hands raised, unnecessarily escalating by tone of voice and demeaning comments, unnecessarily agitating the stress level of the individual by repeatedly threatening him if he makes a single mistake, etc.
Not even 45 seconds into the interaction we have the police accusing them of failing to comprehend simple instructions (assumedly for the female to come out first -- which is not simple, but ambiguous).
Following that, immediately, he states if they make another mistake there is a "very severe possibility you are both going to get shot". OK, so now he has escalated the stress factor with no need.
They attempt clarification and he starts with the verbal hershey squirts, verbally thumping his chest like some sort of wannabe Corporal. He continues to escalate and engage in a complex monologue.
The male rests his head on his arms and the sgt immediately blurts "For one thing, did I tell you to move young man?" At which point the male puts his arms straight fwd assuming he wants him to have his hands fwd, and gets another round of being told not to move, followed by new instruction: put his hands on top of his head and interlace his fingers, cross left foot over right.
We're not even a minute into this video and already the sgt has no control of the situation, talks unnecessarily with a tone of voice which is more condescending than it is authoritative, provides conflicting instruction, and continues to escalate the stress of the encounter. I don't even expect privates to act like this, much less a veteran police sgt.
He then asks again if anyone is in the room and is told no.
He then asks the stupidest question ever: "Are you both drunk?"
No, Sgt Dumbass. That's a subjective question and should be clarified to each individual. The question to ask is "Ma'am, have you had any alcoholic drinks tonight?" *answer* "Sir, have you had any alcoholic drinks tonight?" *answer*. This cascades into his next mistake:
He then "clarifies" whether or not they will have problems understanding anything he tells them. They agree. However, it's quite obvious that not even 2 minutes into this encounter they both seem to have problems understanding due to the fact he has seen fit to correct them several times, particularly Mr. Shaver.
Need I go on? Because this encounter so far has all the hallmarks of someone on scene who has no business being there, or at least no business giving direction. He has no control, offers conflicting instruction, etc.
And we haven't even gotten into more than 2 minutes in.
What a shit show.
Agreed. Once upon a time here in America we had Peace Officers who were trained to de-escalate the situation. Today we have Law Enforcement Officers who are trained to dominate the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
That said we also once had a society of people that treated officers with respect and dignity, and not like they're there to be dicks and spoil everyone's fun or are the storm-troopers of the Patriarchy or Whitey or whatever idiocy people believe.
So the trade-off for our lack of a polite and genteel society is one where cops deal with trash day in and day out and innocent people get gunned down in the streets by them as a result.
You sound very cynical and slighted by the justice system. Officers can only respond with the information given, and in this case that information was from multiple witnesses who stated observing a rifle pointed out of a window of a hotel room. To say that that didn't play a factor at all in how the officers responded is ignorant at best. Up until the moment of attempting to get the male suspect (the deceased) into custody, the response to this situation was by the book. Officers were responding to a report of an individual armed with a rifle. Does the information once officer arrive change? All the freaking time. The call had already involved weapons, and the responding officers tailored their response to the potentiality of a lethal situation. By the law of averages where there is one gun, there is probably two. This is the direct result of the individual's actions. Him being shot is a completely different aspect to the situation, but criticism of the response up to initiating contact with suspect(s) is completely unwarranted from the lay public. Sorry you had a bad experience, but as I stated, up to the point of initial contact with the suspect, I cannot find fault in the response. Does it justify killing someone? Maybe, maybe not, that's all dependent upon the totality of the circumstances. But the individuals actions prior to law enforcement arrival definitely warrant a heightened state of alertness in the response to what was reported.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
I had to watch this with my teen and explain to him how to deal with police. Not the conversation about how to comply but instead how and when to just go still and freeze.i don't know what else this poor kid could have done as had had no path to comply.