The Shooting of Daniel Shaver

[ruby sparks]

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.

Oh c'mon, it's generally agreed, and obvious to the viewer, that the instructions were confusing and indeed bordering on inducing panic. I myself felt that I would not have known what I was supposed to be doing if I had been that guy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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."

Making it much more likely that if the cops accidentally catch some serious criminal (which isn't exactly unusual--a lot of bad guys get caught on minor things. Remember, McVeigh was caught for a missing license plate!) said criminal is going to try to shoot it out--if they're a good shot they'll probably succeed against a lone cop.

You just made it much more dangerous.

 

[LordKiran]

You just made it much more dangerous.

So what? Policing is dangerous. If the cop doesn't have the stomach to risk his own safety to protect and serve then he shouldn't serve. Period. We do not accept chaff when looking for wheat. And we do not accept cowardice when looking for cops.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You just made it much more dangerous.

So what? Policing is dangerous. If the cop doesn't have the stomach to risk his own safety to protect and serve then he shouldn't serve. Period. We do not accept chaff when looking for wheat. And we do not accept cowardice when looking for cops.

Dangerous for everyone around, not just the cops.

 

[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."

Making it much more likely that if the cops accidentally catch some serious criminal (which isn't exactly unusual--a lot of bad guys get caught on minor things. Remember, McVeigh was caught for a missing license plate!) said criminal is going to try to shoot it out--if they're a good shot they'll probably succeed against a lone cop.

You just made it much more dangerous.

More dangerous for the police - who have a choice in profession and who get paid for their job - and less dangerous for civilians.

 

[bilby]

Making it much more likely that if the cops accidentally catch some serious criminal (which isn't exactly unusual--a lot of bad guys get caught on minor things. Remember, McVeigh was caught for a missing license plate!) said criminal is going to try to shoot it out--if they're a good shot they'll probably succeed against a lone cop.

You just made it much more dangerous.

More dangerous for the police - who have a choice in profession and who get paid for their job - and less dangerous for civilians.

5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by ... ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

It's the job.

This crazy insistence by US Authoritarians that it is acceptable to kill civilians, if there is even so much as the perception of possible risk to police, needs to stop.

 

[RavenSky]

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."

Making it much more likely that if the cops accidentally catch some serious criminal (which isn't exactly unusual--a lot of bad guys get caught on minor things. Remember, McVeigh was caught for a missing license plate!) said criminal is going to try to shoot it out--if they're a good shot they'll probably succeed against a lone cop.

You just made it much more dangerous.

Horseshit

 

[coloradoatheist]

5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by ... ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

It's the job.

This crazy insistence by US Authoritarians that it is acceptable to kill civilians, if there is even so much as the perception of possible risk to police, needs to stop.

And how has that worked out in the cases we've talked about? I think the only one has been the officer who shot the kid that was running away.

 

[bilby]

5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by ... ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

It's the job.

This crazy insistence by US Authoritarians that it is acceptable to kill civilians, if there is even so much as the perception of possible risk to police, needs to stop.

And how has that worked out in the cases we've talked about? I think the only one has been the officer who shot the kid that was running away.

WTF?

I think you need to re-read my post, because your response to it makes no sense at all.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And how has that worked out in the cases we've talked about? I think the only one has been the officer who shot the kid that was running away.

WTF?

I think you need to re-read my post, because your response to it makes no sense at all.

Sorry, thought I was responding to something else. The nation is very divided on this issue so I don't think much will be done and for the cases that have gone to court, the cops have gotten the protection from their job.

 

[Axulus]

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.

Actually no, you are incorrect here. The whole reason why the cops have a dangerous suspect turn their back to them or lay face down on the floor, cross their ankles, and interlace their fingers behind their head is to give them plenty of time to react to a guy that decides to go for a hidden weapon and seek out a target.

Ordering the suspect to crawl with ankles crossed was an insane order. The officer should've approached him for the arrest himself and told the suspect to remain still in the position I describe above, and no one would've been shot.

 

[Axulus]

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.

That's why you tell him to remain still, with his back turned to you, fingers interlaced behind the head, until you can assess the situation.

If he unlocks his fingers and moves his hands, that's when it might be justified in shooting or tasering him.

Cops go down unknown halls all the time. There is standard procedure when doing that. It is also why a full team of cops are sent into these situations so that multiple tasks can be performed at once (one officer makes the arrest while the others seek out and protect from other possible threats.

 

[ruby sparks]

To me, it seemed like the cops were worried there might be someone else in the hotel room. They had had reports of a rifle being out a window but no one came out of the room with a rifle. I could be wrong, but it seemed like this might have been the reason they didn't approach him while he was lying down. They did ask more than once if there was anyone else in the room.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Actually no, you are incorrect here. The whole reason why the cops have a dangerous suspect turn their back to them or lay face down on the floor, cross their ankles, and interlace their fingers behind their head is to give them plenty of time to react to a guy that decides to go for a hidden weapon and seek out a target.

Ordering the suspect to crawl with ankles crossed was an insane order. The officer should've approached him for the arrest himself and told the suspect to remain still in the position I describe above, and no one would've been shot.

Telling him to stay put leaves him in the room they hadn't cleared. They were trying to get him out of there.

- - - Updated - - -

To me, it seemed like the cops were worried there might be someone else in the hotel room. They had had reports of a rifle being out a window but no one came out of the room with a rifle. I could be wrong, but it seemed like this might have been the reason they didn't approach him while he was lying down. They did ask more than once if there was anyone else in the room.

Exactly. They didn't want to walk into a possible ambush. Thus they wanted him to come out of the room rather than going into it.

 

[ruby sparks]

Loren, he was out of the room already.

But I agree about the ambush. It seems clear from what was said that this was part of their concerns, and not unreasonably so.

 

[RavenSky]

Quote Originally Posted by Axulus View Post

Quote Originally Posted by coloradoatheist View Post

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.

Actually no, you are incorrect here. The whole reason why the cops have a dangerous suspect turn their back to them or lay face down on the floor, cross their ankles, and interlace their fingers behind their head is to give them plenty of time to react to a guy that decides to go for a hidden weapon and seek out a target.

Ordering the suspect to crawl with ankles crossed was an insane order. The officer should've approached him for the arrest himself and told the suspect to remain still in the position I describe above, and no one would've been shot.

Telling him to stay put leaves him in the room they hadn't cleared. They were trying to get him out of there.

- - - Updated - - -

To me, it seemed like the cops were worried there might be someone else in the hotel room. They had had reports of a rifle being out a window but no one came out of the room with a rifle. I could be wrong, but it seemed like this might have been the reason they didn't approach him while he was lying down. They did ask more than once if there was anyone else in the room.

Exactly. They didn't want to walk into a possible ambush. Thus they wanted him to come out of the room rather than going into it.

Did you even watch the video before pontificating all over this thread?

He was already in the hotel hallway!

(And for once, I agree with Axulus)

 

[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."

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

Perhaps if the police officer is blind or drunk. Try that in this man's position, and see how quickly you can do that.

 

[Arctish]

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

Perhaps if the police officer is blind or drunk. Try that in this man's position, and see how quickly you can do that.

That won't work. coloradoatheist is a good guy with a gun. Only bad guys with guns can draw, aim, and fire guns at incredible speed with deadly accuracy (unless they're Imperial Stormtroopers).

 

[Mumbles]

Telling him to stay put leaves him in the room they hadn't cleared. They were trying to get him out of there.

- - - Updated - - -

To me, it seemed like the cops were worried there might be someone else in the hotel room. They had had reports of a rifle being out a window but no one came out of the room with a rifle. I could be wrong, but it seemed like this might have been the reason they didn't approach him while he was lying down. They did ask more than once if there was anyone else in the room.

Exactly. They didn't want to walk into a possible ambush. Thus they wanted him to come out of the room rather than going into it.

Did you even watch the video before pontificating all over this thread?

He was already in the hotel hallway!

(And for once, I agree with Axulus)

I also like how the cops were so scare of being ambushed that they...spent time standing directly in front of the door to the hotel room fiddling with the door handle.

 

[LordKiran]

Did you even watch the video before pontificating all over this thread?

He was already in the hotel hallway!

(And for once, I agree with Axulus)

I also like how the cops were so scare of being ambushed that they...spent time standing directly in front of the door to the hotel room fiddling with the door handle.

I like how they stood there in the hallway dealing with that one guy when for all they know he could have had an accomplice setting up in another room using the time his buddy was buying him to make his own ambush ever deadlier, which is even more likely after being able to hear him get shot.

"Oh no, they're out for blood, I have to get them now before they get me!"

See I can speculate endlessly to defend my position too!