Body-Cam Video Of Daniel Shaver Shooting

crays -

We were doing gunnery and the SSG had to call for fire. Got flustered. Junior NCO stepped over him on the net to complete the evolution and SSG got pissy about it, but Junior NCO did the right thing.

Bailey Guns -

I was replying to Irving who was talking about the state of mind of the shooter potentially being amped due to the other officer getting out of control with his commands. It is my understanding the shooter was not the one giving commands. It's the responsibility of everyone to maintain their own head and to assist with control of the situation.

I gotcha. You're talking about someone telling the sgt (who seems to have been doing all the screaming at the guy) to maybe take it down a notch or two? Agreed.

This article, in my opinion, is a reasonable explanation of possible reasons the jury acquitted the officer:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ju...rticle/2642978

I'm anxious to hear what one or more of the jurors had to say about this trial. I hope they choose to talk about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CavSct1983

That sort of situation is when you recognize your team mate is having an issue and step in to calm the situation.

While kind of an aside, I recall when my TC (SSG) reached the portion in a gunnery table where the gunner goes black and TC has to initiate a mock call for fire mission. He started wigging out and totally screwing up the call for fire. My wingman TC, a SGT, broke in the sequence on the net and started issuing corrections and proper call for fire procedures. SSG literally threw down the mic and whined, "he's stepping on my toes". No, he was saving our evolution while SSG pissed all over his own face for the world to hear.

No one is perfect all the time. It's ok to step in, even if junior, to correct a situation spiraling out of control.

---

I agree, but not everyone, especially newbs are going to say anything. Crappy, but certainly understandable human nature to let some asshole's fury stay pointed at someone else. Especially if they felt that the already out of control situation would only get worse trying to step in. I'd like to think that were I in the shooter's position, I probably wouldn't have said anything, but wouldn't have fired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

I think it's possible that when you're holding a gun on someone, and the person shouting all the commands is freaking the fuck out and losing his mind, you're probably pretty amped up at that point. "Geez, this seems to be a bigger deal than I thought, he keeps threatening to kill them, guess I'd better be ready to actually pull the trigger here so no one on my team does due to my hesitating." .

---

This brings up an interesting point. It seems sometimes these sorts of situations, when regular street officers respond in groups to potentially dangerous contacts, that the situation can escalate easily rather than de-escalate due to the group response. The group feeds off each other's high energy/emotions. Regular street officers don't necessarily get much team training like swat guys do. Their desire to not let the "team" down can seem to overtake the more appropriate goal of serving and protecting civilians.

(RE: look at the semi recent event in Arapahoe county where responding officers from multiple agencies, after 15 minutes of yelled commands we're ignored by a potentially dangerous individual, it escalated into the firing of something like 50+ rounds at a stopped car. One of the deputies even put 28 rounds into the top of a Trooper's car.)

I was raised by a State Patrol officer who worked a long and lonely stretch of road not far from the southern border. With backup a LONG way away. As I understand it, de-escalation becomes priority when you are all alone. Commands given are of the utmost importance to achieving that goal. Starting a fight man-o y man-o could be problematic. Especially because during much of my Dad's career radios weren't worn on their belt, so backup couldn't be called after a fight started.

Even with that in mind, the officers were not taught that shooting>hands on. Hand-to-hand was extensively taught. And officers oftentimes attempted to detain violent, unarmed bad guys, even solo. This was before modern tasers. Mace was carried but not preferred due to the possibility that it could actually harm the officer. It sounds like nightsticks were a popular tool to encourage compliance.

Point is, on the surface you would think that a solo officer would be more inclined to be jumpy and shoot, but maybe a group who's untrained in team tactics can actually snowball the situation more easily?

Lots of points of view presented, no personal attacks, and educational. Good work folks, on a bad event.

Anyone here try to crawl on your knees alone, hands in the air, with your legs crossed?

I just did, about 2" per crawl. Why subject anyone to that lengthy, difficult, and potentially painful ordeal that only exposes everyone involved for longer than necessary?

Why wasn't he instructed to STOP after starting to hand crawl? If he wasn't following instruction, he needs to be corrected, but not by shooting him.

What a hot mess.