The Shooting of Daniel Shaver

[ruby sparks]

Yes, murder is a high bar. As far as I can see, for it to be justifiable homicide, the officer only has to cite reasonable fear that the victim was a lethal threat, in this case considered to have had a gun or did anything that could have been construed as reaching for one. Pointing any sort of gun (in this case a rifle I believe) out a hotel window was, unfortunately, pretty dumb, in light of recent events elsewhere.

I would have hoped that the officer could have been convicted on a lesser charge though. I think professional, trained police officers who carry arms should arguably be held to a fairly high standard, otherwise why not just have untrained vigilantes enforcing law.

Perhaps the family will win some sort of civil case. It does seem to have been an unnecessary killing, all things considered.

As we see it's a high bar. They did try manslaughter I think in this case too. I would go with just reckless abandonment in this case in hope. But this is also we we have two court systems because sometimes the penalty is more in line with doing your job but just doing it it wrongly which doesn't raise to the criminal nature.

In hear you and by and large I have a lot of sympathy for cops, especially in the USA, where it's a trickier job than here what with all the guns in circulation.

However I do think that when something like this happens that is clearly wrong on so many counts, that there oughtn't to necessarily be a sort of glass ceiling between doing your job badly and doing something criminal. It might deter similarly...dodgy...people. Also, imo a police force, in order to serve the public, has to serve the public, and be seen to do so. Not convicting can undermine confidence in the public being served and lead to other things happening down the line that become policing and social order issues, though this is perhaps more often the case for 'unjustified' cop shootings of blacks. Cops or the role they play in society don't exist in a vacuum. I think they should be answerable, even if I agree they need leeway, understanding and support generally.

I don't often say that in such cases. This particular one has sickened people right around the world and the perception is that the guy got off.

 

[LordKiran]

Doing one's job so wrongly that it results in the death of others does raise it to a criminal act in more situations than not.

A cop should not get preferential treatment on this point.

Especially a cop that even his own department believed was so wrong they fired him.

I disagree on the cop getting a preferntial treatment, because it is their job to go into difficult situations and handle it. You and I aren't asked to go find that guy who is holding a gun out of the window to try and stop them from shooting people. The cops job is to protect others and themselves in situation we don't. We could easily end shooting deaths from cops, just have no police.

If the job requirements are so exhaustive then only the best should be good enough.

Having reflected on this, if I were in this position I'd make a point to go after the state. I would not settle, I would want government-level incompetence in the selection and training process to be realized. I would open the doors for further lawsuits. I would exact my pound of flesh from the people who put the officer in the position he was in over Daniel Shaver.

Simply having a difficult job is not a reason for leniency. If the officers in question weren't up to the job, they shouldn't have taken it. More correctly, it shouldn't have been offered to them. The people at the top should know the red flags that make a man dangerous in that position, and their failure and general incompetence is what ultimately got someone killed.

 

[TSwizzle]

I disagree on the cop getting a preferntial treatment, because it is their job to go into difficult situations and handle it. You and I aren't asked to go find that guy who is holding a gun out of the window to try and stop them from shooting people.

They were wrangling a drunk that was crawling on the lobby floor, crying and pleading for his life.

 

[bilby]

Yes, murder is a high bar. As far as I can see, for it to be justifiable homicide, the officer only has to cite reasonable fear that the victim was a lethal threat, in this case considered to have had a gun or did anything that could have been construed as reaching for one. Pointing any sort of gun (in this case a rifle I believe) out a hotel window was, unfortunately, pretty dumb, in light of recent events elsewhere.

I would have hoped that the officer could have been convicted on a lesser charge though. I think professional, trained police officers who carry arms should arguably be held to a fairly high standard, otherwise why not just have untrained vigilantes enforcing law.

Perhaps the family will win some sort of civil case. It does seem to have been an unnecessary killing, all things considered.

As we see it's a high bar. They did try manslaughter I think in this case too. I would go with just reckless abandonment in this case in hope. But this is also we we have two court systems because sometimes the penalty is more in line with doing your job but just doing it it wrongly which doesn't raise to the criminal nature.

In hear you and by and large I have a lot of sympathy for cops, especially in the USA, where it's a trickier job than here what with all the guns in circulation.

However I do think that when something like this happens that is clearly wrong on so many counts, that there oughtn't to necessarily be a sort of glass ceiling between doing your job badly and doing something criminal. It might deter similarly...dodgy...people. Also, imo a police force, in order to serve the public, has to serve the public, and be seen to do so. Not convicting can undermine confidence in the public being served and lead to other things happening down the line that become policing and social order issues, though this is perhaps more often the case for 'unjustified' cop shootings of blacks. Cops or the role they play in society don't exist in a vacuum. I think they should be answerable, even if I agree they need leeway, understanding and support generally.

I don't often say that in such cases. This particular one has sickened people right around the world and the perception is that the guy got off.

Robert Peel understood the importance of the police not only being seen to serve the public, but of them being recognized to be the public.

The militarization of policing, and the setting aside of police as distinct from the public they are intended to serve, undermines the basic principles of policing (as distinct from military force and severe judicial punishments) as a means to the end of a low crime society. Peel's nine principles, as set out in the "General Instructions" of the Metropolitan Police in 1829 are:

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary, of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

(My bold).

In the absence of these principles, we do not have a police force; We just have a gang that is bigger and better equipped than the other gangs.

 

[coloradoatheist]

In 1829 we didn't have a person or people opening up a window on the floor in a hotel and shooting 200 people in a few minute span either. School kids didn't have to worry about one of the classmates coming to school and shooting up the school. And look at the Vegas shooting, there was criticism on this board about how long it took it took for the swat team to show up in the hotel and on the floor. It took an hour and the people below were lucky he decided to commit suicide early. The issue is we want both, we want the cops to shoot someone that is dangerous first but not to shoot anyone.

 

[RavenSky]

We could easily end shooting deaths from cops, just have no police.

Well gee... I wonder what else the U.S. could do?

In 1829 we didn't have a person or people opening up a window on the floor in a hotel and shooting 200 people in a few minute span either. School kids didn't have to worry about one of the classmates coming to school and shooting up the school.

Still thinking... something... something that other countries do rather than eliminating their police forces...

The issue is we want both, we want the cops to shoot someone that is dangerous first but not to shoot anyone.

Is that really the issue? Really what "we" want?

 

[bilby]

In 1829 we didn't have a person or people opening up a window on the floor in a hotel and shooting 200 people in a few minute span either. School kids didn't have to worry about one of the classmates coming to school and shooting up the school. And look at the Vegas shooting, there was criticism on this board about how long it took it took for the swat team to show up in the hotel and on the floor. It took an hour and the people below were lucky he decided to commit suicide early. The issue is we want both, we want the cops to shoot someone that is dangerous first but not to shoot anyone.

Well, of course the 19th century Metropolitan Police didn't have to worry about the fucking insanity that is the American approach to their Second Amendment in the 20th century.

If you start from the premise that anyone can own a firearm for any reason or none, without licence or restriction, then your society is fucked to begin with, and NO policing principles will defend you from all of the bad effects of your poor judgment in not repealing that harmful constitutional provision. You might as well try to prevent organized crime while shackled by the Eighteenth Amendment. Your constitution was explicitly designed to allow for the removal of harmful provisions and the addition of helpful ones, so if you refuse to repeal one that causes such obvious and ongoing harm, that's your lookout.

None of your objections here have to do with policing as such; Just with the untenable position your police are sometimes placed in by your crazy laws.

The Peelian principles still apply. Nothing in those principles prevents the police (or the public) from using deadly force if required as a last resort. But they do preculde the use of force simply to protect police against the possibility of a threat: "ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life" is expected of police; If they can't tolerate the risk to their person inherent in the job, then they shouldn't have joined the police service to begin with.

 

[laughing dog]

The issue is we want both, we want the cops to shoot someone that is dangerous first but not to shoot anyone.

No, that is not what anyone wants. I'd prefer the police refrain from shooting to kill until they are sure their target is intending and capable of deadly force, instead of shooting first and then saying "Well, I thought he was armed and dangerous."

 

[coloradoatheist]

The issue is we want both, we want the cops to shoot someone that is dangerous first but not to shoot anyone.

No, that is not what anyone wants. I'd prefer the police refrain from shooting to kill until they are sure their target is intending and capable of deadly force, instead of shooting first and then saying "Well, I thought he was armed and dangerous."

And by the time a person can recognize a gun he can first at least one shot or more hitting either one of the two police officers, the woman or someone through one of the walls. The cops are there to protect and they warned him not to move and he still went ahead with reaching behind his back, a very dangerous move.

You have been consititent. Cops must wait until they are shot before firing.

 

[J842P]

The issue is we want both, we want the cops to shoot someone that is dangerous first but not to shoot anyone.

No, that is not what anyone wants. I'd prefer the police refrain from shooting to kill until they are sure their target is intending and capable of deadly force, instead of shooting first and then saying "Well, I thought he was armed and dangerous."

And by the time a person can recognize a gun he can first at least one shot or more hitting either one of the two police officers, the woman or someone through one of the walls. The cops are there to protect and they warned him not to move and he still went ahead with reaching behind his back, a very dangerous move.

You have been consititent. Cops must wait until they are shot before firing.

It's amazing to me that you identify as a libertarian. Imagine, a libertarian who supports agents of the state having absolute authority over civilians, and if the civilians make any mistake or fail to follow these orders, they can be shot on site, because otherwise agents of the state might be put in danger...


Liberty indeed.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And by the time a person can recognize a gun he can first at least one shot or more hitting either one of the two police officers, the woman or someone through one of the walls. The cops are there to protect and they warned him not to move and he still went ahead with reaching behind his back, a very dangerous move.

You have been consititent. Cops must wait until they are shot before firing.

It's amazing to me that you identify as a libertarian. Imagine, a libertarian who supports agents of the state having absolute authority over civilians, and if the civilians make any mistake or fail to follow these orders, they can be shot on site, because otherwise agents of the state might be put in danger...


Liberty indeed.

I'm not an anarchist. And I do believe the police have a right to protect people from each other. And I believe they have some leniency to carry that out. Asking someone to keep their hands on their head until they investigate what is going on isn't a violation of liberty.

 

[Malintent]

Also, I read that the victim is survived by his wife and kids. Hard to imagine what they're going through.

And his wife and kids can go online and watch their husband/father on his knees, begging for his life before being gunned down.

Anyone else here watch the video? He's trying so desperately to surrender to the cop. So obviously terrified. Alternately kneeling, lying prone, or with his hands up in the air pleading to not get shot.

Now imagine that's your husband. Or your dad. And to watch that and know that his killer will walk because cops get the benefit of the doubt no matter what.

I would like to hear the reason (from the family) the victim of the shooting was unable to follow the directions. Did he have a medical history that effects his ability to know what his hands are doing? Did he have a cognitive disorder of some sort? The only way another person will avoid being shot in a similar situation is of the police can learn why either party acted the way they did.

It seems like the cop was training another cop, based on the audio... so he was most likely following procedure to the letter... specifically that when you don't know if a person is armed and command them to not move their hands, if they make a quick movement of their hands into an obscured location, to fire upon them. IF that is the rule, then the cop did exactly what he was supposed to do at that instant.... how they got to that instant is another story.

Previous reports have indicated Shaver may have been drunk at the time of the shooting — despite telling officers he was not

He may have lied about his cognative state because the cops were there after he pointed a rifle out of the hotel window.

 

[James Brown]

It's been pointed out more than once in this thread that there are better ways to discover if a suspect is armed than playing Killer Simon Sez. If you're worried that Quick Draw McGraw will get the drop on you, why in the world would you allow him to get closer to you?

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's been pointed out more than once in this thread that there are better ways to discover if a suspect is armed than playing Killer Simon Sez. If you're worried that Quick Draw McGraw will get the drop on you, why in the world would you allow him to get closer to you?

The cops have several threats at the same time and have to deal with that. Since the cops didn't know that this person was the suspect for sure, that he didn't have any partners, going into an unknown hall would be a problem. Unless they had cleared the rooms on the hallway then there was a concern that while they are talking to this person a partner or the real shooter opens the door and shoots. It would be safer for the guy to come to them and crwling puts him a position he has a very hard time shooting from.

 

[Malintent]

It's been pointed out more than once in this thread that there are better ways to discover if a suspect is armed than playing Killer Simon Sez. If you're worried that Quick Draw McGraw will get the drop on you, why in the world would you allow him to get closer to you?

Ask a cop. They will explain to you why their tactics are the way they are. One aspect is that there apparently was another person still inside the hotel room. Getting closer was not safe, so having them come to you would be the right tactic... either "crawl to me", or walk backwards towards my voice", or some other way of getting them under control while maintaining a tactical advantage.

I guess if I wanted to get away with crime after being stopped by a cop, I could just repeat "please don't kill me" in a pitiful way over and over again until the cop is worn down and I can get my gun out fast enough... should that work?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Those police were crazy. Did you see them in front of the hotel door, trying over and over to get the key card to work? If they thought someone was inside with a gun, that's a real reckless thing to do--to be right in front of the door for so long. Maybe after killing the guy on the floor they had an adrenaline rush and thought they were invulnerable.

 

[laughing dog]

It's been pointed out more than once in this thread that there are better ways to discover if a suspect is armed than playing Killer Simon Sez. If you're worried that Quick Draw McGraw will get the drop on you, why in the world would you allow him to get closer to you?

Ask a cop. They will explain to you why their tactics are the way they are. One aspect is that there apparently was another person still inside the hotel room. Getting closer was not safe, so having them come to you would be the right tactic... either "crawl to me", or walk backwards towards my voice", or some other way of getting them under control while maintaining a tactical advantage.

A former law enforcement expert says different - and his comments are in this thread. Do you bother to read them?

 

[LordKiran]

And by the time a person can recognize a gun he can first at least one shot or more hitting either one of the two police officers, the woman or someone through one of the walls. The cops are there to protect and they warned him not to move and he still went ahead with reaching behind his back, a very dangerous move.

You have been consititent. Cops must wait until they are shot before firing.

It's amazing to me that you identify as a libertarian. Imagine, a libertarian who supports agents of the state having absolute authority over civilians, and if the civilians make any mistake or fail to follow these orders, they can be shot on site, because otherwise agents of the state might be put in danger...


Liberty indeed.

You don't remember the Libertarian slogan?

"Accept more, expect less."

 

[James Brown]

Ask a cop.

Well, retired FBI Agent James A. Gagliano was asked, and he said it was "... a confluence of interrelated errors by the tactical team transpired to cause this tragedy, and it was entirely preventable."

They will explain to you why their tactics are the way they are.

So if Brailsford was following proper tactics, then why was he fired over this?

I guess if I wanted to get away with crime after being stopped by a cop, I could just repeat "please don't kill me" in a pitiful way over and over again until the cop is worn down and I can get my gun out fast enough... should that work?

I didn't read the trial transcript. Did Brailsford make this defense? "I had to shoot him because what if Shaver was faking his distress?"

Sure, maybe Shaver was putting on an act. But it's harder to fake that you don't have a gun in your waistband, especially if the cops had taken steps ahead of time to discover that. As Gagliano explained, there are better ways to make it more difficult for someone to get a gun out fast enough than "crawl toward me with your hands in the air."

 

[marc]

hmm.... a cop with his semi-auto rifle pointed at a guy has to shoot, because the guy on all fours might be trying to pull a gun. Is the cop a sloth? or does he think the suspect might be the Flash? since obviously the cop can't use his trigger finger in the time it takes the guy to bring his arm from his waistband to in front of him, aim, and fire.