I believe I want one that says"Close before flight"...
Printable View
I believe I want one that says"Close before flight"...
Hell, I don't think I want anything like that on the dust cover. If they can read it, they most likely killed you and now have your weapon.
Why not something like "Eff off", or "I hope you die choking on a dick"?
https://youtu.be/_AQndX39JMs
I've been waiting for this video, I think this is an excellent break down of the legalities surrounding the recently-concluded criminal court proceedings.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
https://m.facebook.com/taprack.tacti...83248931985963
Bill Blowers assessment of this unfortunate incident. If you don't know who Bill Blowers is, well then go square yourself away.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...26788ed1cf.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...af67b7af40.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...b4e823ef27.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...726d2c6b57.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...7499666cd1.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...0b81ce825c.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...0124f83aac.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...e7840936ba.jpg
https://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=http...RMFqn5ldxo&s=1
We can all see what he's saying from the video. But rewatch it. "Keep your hands up" immediately followed by orders to crawl. Well, which is it? That's contradictory and complicates matters. What was up with the holier than thou tone of voice and peppered phrases adopted by the Sergeant, in combo with the increased tension in his voice, raising to freak out levels? Why the fast and complicated instructions that contradict. The whole thing was utterly retarded and did not have to go the way it did. Both come out together, but female first. Why? Because of ambiguous instructions. This complicates their detainment plan. He makes a guess that they would have had her walk backwards, hands up, and then detained. And then they would have had him exit the room, walk backwards, hands up, and then detained. After the female was detained, what prevented them from executing the original supposed plan? Fields of fire were clear.
Did the events leading up to the shooting suck?Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
Yes.
Was the shooting legally justified?
Yes.
Should Mr. Brailsford face imprisonment or the death penalty because the Sergeant in charge was a prick?
No.
Should he face imprisonment or the death penalty because he shot and killed Mr. Shaver?
No.
Should Mr. Brailsford have been in Law Enforcement in the first place?
Probably not.
Should the Mesa PD adopt and enforce simpler detainment/arrest SOP's?
Yes.
Did Mr. Shaver make several dumb decisions the day he was killed? Absolutely.
Guns + Alcohol. Not a good mix.
Pointing guns out of windows not good.
Lying about being drunk to Police. Also not good.
Lying about being able to follow instructions. Not good.
Disobeying Law Enforcement commands. Also not good.
As an aside if my wife found out I had been drinking in a hotel room with a woman that was not her, being shot and killed by Police would be the least of my worries. Hell hath no fury and all that. Not saying he deserved to be killed, just looking at it objectively.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
Everyone knows that you're supposed to just agree with police in the street to not make them mad. So what does it matter if he lied about being drunk, or lied at all?
Also, he probably could have followed orders, if they weren't designed for failure.
Did he actually have a gun? Was he actually pointing it out the window? <-- I really don't know.
Guns and alcohol not mixing is irrelevant if he didn't fire a gun while being drunk.
With what I've seen and with the additional info, I think Brailsford's verdict was probably correct. I also wonder if the Zarate verdict might of had an affect on this verdict. Arizona, being fairly conservative, maybe telling liberal California: How can we convict an American, killing in the line of duty, when you let an illegal walk. Far fetched?Quote:
Originally Posted by MOLON LABE
Probably
There were two high powered air rifles in room 502. Multiple eyewitnesses from the ground saw at least one male pointing a long gun out of a window.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Had Mr. Shaver not have gotten to a 0.29 BAC , he might not have been pointing an Air Rifle out a hotel room window. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If I start pointing guns on my front porch, or out my window, I would imagine the Police show up. If I was almost 4 times over the legal limit to operate a motor vehicle, what do you think my chances of going into custody completely unharmed would be?
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
So there were rifles at least. I agree, don't be that drunk around guns. None of that has anything to do with him being killed though.
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.
With some slightly more subjective input....I have to say that I'm PRO COP damn near all the time. Not always, but damn near.
I originally voiced an opinion that this was a "shitty shoot". I just watched a loop from hands straight up to last shot fired about 20 times.
For a short bit, I thought he might have been going for the bag in the middle of the floor....clearly not the case.
NOW I see the right hand motion he made behind his back, and started to bring his hand forward again....that is when the officer did what I believe to be procedure/training response.
While I still think that it sucks the subject was killed in the process of trying to follow seemingly odd directions being given....I also now see a clear and obvious window where that officer was on auto pilot relying on his training to neutralize a potential threat. Had I not seen the subject right hand motion behind and then forward, I would still call this a "shitty shoot".
That poor judgement with his right hand is what sealed his fate IMO......the rest of his poor decisions aside.
ETA:...that officer didn't have the benefit of watching it happen 20 times.
OK,
Now I really want to know is when are we getting a popcorn smiley. Could use one here right about now.
His poor judgment was necessitated by an idiot screaming contradictory orders and having him crawl, while intoxicated, in a hallway which had an object in his way, while continually being told if he made a mistake he would be shot. It was a shitty shoot because Sgt. Charles Langley wanted to play bad ass and engage in unnecessary repartee, instead of doing a simple job in a cool and collected manner.
[Pop]Quote:
Originally Posted by brutal
I won't disagree with you Cav.
The idiot screaming is an idiot IMO. The officer that fired was operating on training I believe.
Damn, I ain't had popcorn in a long time.
Why couldn't I find that?Quote:
Originally Posted by 00tec
We've had one for years. You just have to cross your left leg over your right leg, AT THE KNEE, behind your back, close your left eye, keep my right eye open, crawl forward eleven paces using only the peaks of your hips and your chin, raise your credit score by 6 points on Experian and 2 points in Equifax, open a free checking account at Chase bank, load three .40S&W cartridges with 9.5 grains of Titegroup, use a 1.5" chisel to hand carve a dovetail into a rubber doorstop, legally take an elk with a .38 special at 77 yards, and vote your conscientious at the next election, while selecting the smiley from the drop down menu under the Go Advanced tab. You have till I can count down from ten to zero and if you make a mistake I'll fucking kill you.
It's in the "smiley thing"....tard.
[werdo]
Need that like button too.Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
You know....I've always liked Irving.
This was very professionally handled -none of you get an opinion on it. You weren't there. The body cam footage is inconclusive. It was a good shoot.
This officer was trained in de-escalation techniques to include the use of assault rifles, rocket launchers, and fragmentation grenades. Just because his pre-cursor to using a de-escalation technique on this dangerous animal of a subject was insulting, sprinkled with gleeful promises of a pending de-escalation, and had to be the most confusing series of commands ever uttered by anyone, just means you folks are all ignorant. You can't understand what its like to confront a compliant drunk in a hallway when your assault rifle hasn't ever killed anyone...how lonely your rifle must be and how much it needs to be used in it's de-escalation role.
Think about the officer safety - if officers didn't lethally de-escalate the situations they escalated to begin with, the deaths of innocent people could possibly in some small percentage of cases become the death of officers!
Who falls forward when on all fours, and reaches a dominant hand back to his waist, even if intoxicated?
We were doing well in this thread with exchanging ideas and information on both sides without getting personal. Now things have gotten personal and it's time for this discourse to conclude.
THREAD CLOSED
Watch 4:12 to 4:30 repeatedly. At 4:25/6 subject deliberately reaches right hand back, (out of shooting officers view) and brings right hand back forward again.
I don't give two shits if my opinion is worthless in everyone elses eyes or not, I know the asshole yelling is an idiot.....and I sincerely believe that the officer that fired was operating on his training.
My first lock attempt failed (too button pushing happy). It's locked now.
As we move forward from this thread remember what we have in common and try to value that others may have differing opinions on some things but it doesn't deserve a personal attack.