Body-Cam Video Of Daniel Shaver Shooting

[Joe_K]

Four officers pointing (presumably) AR-15's at him, ready to fire. In the position he is in, the average reaction time to register that he has a gun and to pull the trigger on him several times is significantly shorter than the amount of time he requires to retrieve the gun, rotate his arm forward towards the officers, and pull the trigger.

So if he produced a weapon while crawling and used it before the officers fired on him, I'd want drug tests as their reflexes would be slowed to the point to have questions.

Only when he is standing, with a hand held near the (imaginary gun) position on an (presumably open carry) could he potentially draw and fire on officers who are already aiming at him within margins of (slower) reactions if he had skill.

This is all different when an officer has his weapon holstered and is surprised. But four officers with AR's pointed on you ready to fire before you have a weapon? You've got the same chance to get a wendy's soft serve in hell as you do successfully drawing and staying alive long enough to even get it pointed over there. It isn't hollywood, this is the same reason your chance of drawing a concealed weapon is nill if someone has a gun pointed on you, finger on the trigger, much less four people drawn on you.


ETA: I guess my point is, they had such an advantage in the situation that deescalation and hesitation is appropriate. E.g. shooting because he moves? Not good enough. Shooting because they see a weapon? Justified, and still within the margins to mitigate or altogether eliminate risk to the officers.

If we're talking one officer, with a weapon holstered, and all the sudden the suspect reaches into his wasteband, it would be much more justified for that officer to draw and fire in a panic; because their is a real belief his life is in jeopardy and there wouldn't be the time to hesitate.

Someone crawling on the floor makes a mistake with four AR's pointed at them? Sorry, it's real hard for me to believe the officer had a credible belief of risk to his life in that millisecond - e.g. one where he would lose the tactical advantage or be unable to react to save life. The second a weapon was visible? Sure. But they do have the time in this situation to discern that, where in the former (lone officer, holstered weapon) does not.

Makes sense, appreciate the response.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

[OtterbatHellcat]

I'm no expert on any of this, and I'm with Brutals assessment of the situation.

The video that I watched shows me an unnecessary death. Pretty clear to me the subject was trying to follow the messed up directions being given....even though he did start crawling on all fours.

This is a shitty shoot IMO....that guy shouldn't have died.

[jslo]

I do feel the directives were confusing and done in an agitated state. We all know, after the fact, the victim was not a threat. But after watching the video a few times the victim was told to keep his hands up more than once. Twice he lowered his hand(s) to behind his back. The first time, he got a "pass", which if there was a time to shoot I feel was then. The second time he paid with his life. I'm starting to feel, maybe, the shoot was good but what lead up to it was a fucked-up mess.

[Zundfolge]

*IF* Mr. Shaver would have had a weapon on him...

*IF* Michael Brown actually had his hands up and hadn't robbed a bodega ...

[Joe_K]

*IF* Michael Brown actually had his hands up and hadn't robbed a bodega ...

?

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

[trlcavscout]

That is ridiculous! That “cop” should be going to prison. He is obviously way to trigger happy and unprofessional to be anything more then an unarmed mall security guard.

[MrPrena]

I also blame on a damn jurors.
This case, Zarate (ca), Ynez (mn), and that Australian women (also in mn) are worst.

Why is it? Great defense? Lack of prep from prodecutors?

[DavieD55]

That is homicide.

[Ronin13]

Regarding the convoluted instructions the officer gave...

When I was working the street, and especially after I became a FTO, one thing that irritated me more than anything was someone giving complicated instructions like that.

Imagine a high-risk car stop. It was typical to hear something like this, especially from rookies just out on the street:

"Driver! With your right hand reach outside the window and open the vehicle door. Exit the vehicle. Turn around, face away from me, walk backwards to the sound of my voice, get down on one knee, get down on the other knee, blah, blah, blah, do this, do that, cross your feet such and such a way, you din't say 'mother may I?', etc... It's much like using police jargon when writing reports that could be much better by using normal, layman's language.

Most of the guys recognized, after doing it that way the first time, how confusing it is not only to do, but to follow. And how much easier it was to say something like, "GET OUT OF THE CAR NOW AND LEMME SEE YOUR HANDS!", "GET ON THE GROUND AND DON'T MOVE!".

Because that's how it was taught. At least back then in the 80s and 90s. I always hated that.

Thankfully training has changed- I was taught during high-risk (felony) stops to keep your instructions short, sweet, and idiot-level simply. "Get out of the car with your hands up. Walk towards me with your hands up. Stop. Turn around. Do not move." Cuff, and move to secured position, have another officer pat down and place in car. Move on to the next occupant.

When talking about these situations, people say "Why didn't they just prone him out there and cuff?" We're always taught known vs unknown. They dominated that hall way from where they were, had ample cover to bring suspects into custody from there (whoever was in charge decided that, and I can't fault that decision). We're taught to bring the suspects to us. This is where it fell apart. I've never been taught, in all my UOF or felony stop training, to have someone go to their knees and then move to where I am. That's inviting problems. This time it ended in the worst way. It looked to me (Someone who wasn't there, wasn't in that mindset) that the kid was trying to pull his pants up, and that's the move that was interpreted as a "furtive" movement that got him shot. I think it came down to training and execution. Both were deeply flawed.

Personally, after seeing the video, and seeing what the officer had on his rifle- he might have been unstable and looking to get into a shooting. Warning sign #1. His demeanor and attitude should have been noticed prior to this incident, and that's on his command/supervisors. You usually notice warning signs that officers are probable liabilities. What they say in the locker room, what they do in training. In this day-and-age some parts of the job require a level of aggressiveness. But also the job requires a level head during stressful situations. That's my $.02.

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

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

This! Nothing says you can't stop things and say "Hey, let me handle this from here." If it appears like your partner is getting too amped, or stressed, or what have you.

[davsel]

Bad shoot.

However, to those that say the cops should have just cuffed him where he lay, the cops were likely concerned about whether or not there was a gunman still in the room. They wanted to remain out of sight of the peep-hole.

Then again, they seemed to just wander up to the door after the shooting, so all-around piss-poor Mesa police tactics on display.