The Shooting of Daniel Shaver By Cops. I Believe Was Justified. Who Agrees?

[Cacc]

OK,

so this is the kind of shit I do on the end of the year. But I can't get this off my mind because everyone is calling cops evil and murderers it seems.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... 294735fe75


You can watch the video there. Why do I believe it was justified?

At the beginning, the guy was asked if he was drunk. He replied that he wasn't even though he actually was. Which means that whatever gestures Shaver made was seen as deliberate acts and not because he was inebriated.

So, the sergeant starts giving Shaver orders. For those who don't know, the cops showed up because someone called the police stating someone on the balcony was pointing a gun. This was Shaver, however it was a pellet gun used for pest control.

Also, the guy who was giving the orders was not the guy that shot him! Which so many people seem to get wrong.

So you've got a guy that lied about being sober and the cops think he's a crazy person pointing a gun out the balcony.

Here come's the red flag. While being given orders, in his drunken stupor he makes the mistake of putting both his hands behind his back. This is what causes the sergeant to become angry and start shouting orders and telling him, if he does not follow directions there is a good chance he will be shot. Which was 100% justified.


So, as Shaver starts crawling forward following orders, he decides to reach for the back of his pants and gets unloaded on by one of the cops.


That's the end of Daniel Shaver. The man that died trying to pull up his pants.


Sad, but it was 100% justified. It just feels wrong that 99% of the people out there think the cop is a murderer/all cops are bad.

This is my take on this.

What about you guys? Agree or disagree?

 

[Mike&Ikes]

After watching the video a couple of times, I have to agree. While I pitty the poor kid, he did look like he was going for a gun from the cop’s perspective, even though he was just pulling up his pants. Could the situation been handled better to avoid this? Possibly, but I’m not a cop, so I don’t know protocol for these situations.

All I can really say after watching the video is, bad call, but what else was the cop supposed to do? Take the chance of getting shot? I don’t think so.

Mike

 

[Ree]

After watching the video a couple of times, I have to agree. While I pitty the poor kid, he did look like he was going for a gun from the cop’s perspective, even though he was just pulling up his pants. Could the situation been handled better to avoid this? Possibly, but I’m not a cop, so I don’t know protocol for these situations.

All I can really say after watching the video is, bad call, but what else was the cop supposed to do? Take the chance of getting shot? I don’t think so.

Mike

i dont think it was justified.

 

[BlackBolt]

Disgusting and not justified. The kid was unarmed and trying his best to comply, the sergeants Commands were contradictory, the officer who killed the young man had the words you're fucked etched on his gun.

More than 2k police shootings per year (since 2002 Norway has had 2), billions of money stolen from US citizens by cops through Civil asset forfeiture, war on drugs is a proven failure, we have more US citizens In prison now than Stalin had at the height of his gulags.

The US policing system much like our political system is massively broken and overflowing with corruption.

 

[Parkour]

My impression from the video/article is that he is trigger happy and paranoid as evidenced by his claim he would have done the same thing. I don’t believe that officer should be allowed to have a gun any time soon. That role calls for extreme calibration under pressure and the etch on his gun is just one of what I expect would be many signs that he doesn’t exhibit the restraint and calibration required to negotiate these situations, especially in a serve and protect mode. It’s a personality issue that doesn’t fit the job.
In the end, he didn’t serve or protect anybody, he killed the guy because his thinking was too inflexible to process what was going on. There were 0 signs of actual aggression from the man, a clear sign of intoxication and an impaired ability to comply with basic directions and there is a broad spectrum of actions the cop could have taken had he not gone to war in his head and projected the last massacre into this event. Intoxication like other imparements or disabilities must be navigated better.
I acknowledge it’s scary, he was afraid, and outside of war zones, almost no one has a lot of experiences dealing with potential shooters in this scenario. I also acknowledge that it’s always easier to pass judgement from the sidelines. I don’t believe he should be convicted of second degree murder but I do believe he should be held accountable AND be removed from duties that involve conflict, be stripped of his gun permit, while also facing mandatory counseling. The issue seems to be a value system that exercises aggression and assertiveness over safety to unrefined engagement protocol rather than reckless abuse of power for social oppression. I do believe the department owes the family for wrongful death and should undergo a formal review of how it handles critical engagements to refine its protocols and screen it’s team for trigger happy behavior.
These situations are nuanced, unfortunately, the binary ends of the spectrum (murderer vs safely doing his duty) miss the entire spectrum in the middle. Kind of like our current political/social landscape... I don’t think by and large we leave enough room to negotiate the middle ground on issues. At least in terms of public opinion, our media and social echo chamber encourages a pervasive tendency of a large swath of people to either demonizes or defends vehemently a side even as more balanced commentary sort gets crap from both ends. It seems to me that the pragmatic best case for what we call truth/justice and common ground is only going be found in a mix of both and neither extreme but in these issues, how do we echo that?

 

[Richard]

Not justified.

I think the situation (even under the pretense of the kid having a gun and pointing it out the window, etc.) was handled incorrectly. The officer saying "Comply or we will shoot" is seeding an action into other officer's heads that may have not happened otherwise. Couple all of that with what seems like an aggressive display of power, I think you have a formula to shoot someone.

The kid was complying to the best of his abilities and, given his obvious drunken state, I think the correct move to make was have an officer cover him while another officer approaches and handcuffs. Every time the officer's gave a request, he complied sooo having him keep his hands up and straight while an officer approaches shouldn't have been a hassle.

Too many things went wrong here. Hell, even the officer saying "Comply or we will shoot" isn't following protocol because the suspect was not posing a threat; he was crawling on the ground.

Anyway, the way I see it the officer issuing the commands created a sense of non-compliance for other officers (which, Shaver was clearly complying), the leader was aggressive in his tone/grammar, and mixed or confused signals/commands were being given to Shaver. So, it seems like the team leader created the situation that maximized the chance of Shaver being shot. Totally not justified and protocol was not followed. For reference, Shaver was not asked to interlace his fingers and put them on his head, was not asked to spin around so the police could see his beltline WHILE giving them more time to react if he actually had a gun he'd have to turn around FIRST, etc. None of these measures were followed so the shooting is not justified.

-Richard

 

[Cacc]

Actually the kid wasn't complying very well at all. He was jittery, and he put his hands behind his back twice. The girl complied perfectly, which was why she was told to leave so quickly.

A lot of people that blame cops wouldn't do much better in those kinds of situations. And cops ain't exactly cia spies. It doesn't take much to become a cop and whatever they teach you it's not the same as any real life experience.

Obviously, liberals will still have their feathers ruffled. But I don't really care about that.


You put your hands behind your back twice on a group of cops pointing guns at you, you're asking to die.

The officer saying "Comply or we will shoot" is seeding an action into other officer's heads that may have not happened otherwise. Couple all of that with what seems like an aggressive display of power, I think you have a formula to shoot someone.

Lol. More like, giving a warning to the perpetrator. "If you don't follow our commands you will die". I'd say that's a pretty good way to get people to do what you tell them. Unless ofc, you're there to cause harms to the cops. Also, you are talking as if the cops felt the victim was harmless. They were brought in because someone was pointing a gun, last I checked.

Aggressive display of power? Have you ever handled dicey situations before? The last thing you want to do is give the other person breathing room. You want to be constantly moving forward. Leading and being dominant. That's how you handle a dicey situation, you don't handle it by sitting back, letting the other person lead. That is how cops have always been in bad situations, loud, and not giving any breathing room.

 

[Ree]

Not justified.

I think the situation (even under the pretense of the kid having a gun and pointing it out the window, etc.) was handled incorrectly. The officer saying "Comply or we will shoot" is seeding an action into other officer's heads that may have not happened otherwise. Couple all of that with what seems like an aggressive display of power, I think you have a formula to shoot someone.

The kid was complying to the best of his abilities and, given his obvious drunken state, I think the correct move to make was have an officer cover him while another officer approaches and handcuffs. Every time the officer's gave a request, he complied sooo having him keep his hands up and straight while an officer approaches shouldn't have been a hassle.

Too many things went wrong here. Hell, even the officer saying "Comply or we will shoot" isn't following protocol because the suspect was not posing a threat; he was crawling on the ground.

Anyway, the way I see it the officer issuing the commands created a sense of non-compliance for other officers (which, Shaver was clearly complying), the leader was aggressive in his tone/grammar, and mixed or confused signals/commands were being given to Shaver. So, it seems like the team leader created the situation that maximized the chance of Shaver being shot. Totally not justified and protocol was not followed. For reference, Shaver was not asked to interlace his fingers and put them on his head, was not asked to spin around so the police could see his beltline WHILE giving them more time to react if he actually had a gun he'd have to turn around FIRST, etc. None of these measures were followed so the shooting is not justified.

-Richard

true,briliant analysis

 

[Richard]

Cacc,

Seems like we're always disagreeing... and the disagreement stems from your lack of knowledge and you incorrectly assuming a lot of things.

1) My surrogate father figure was the police chief of the Chicago suburbs; ya know, the same place I grew where I've frequently talked about having knives pulled on me, tried to been robbed, and tried to have been jumped several times. I'm familiar with a lot of police protocol because I know someone who had to teach it and use it in "dicey" situations. I'm familiar with dicey situations because I grew up in a bad neighborhood.

2) Protocol was not followed. Again, the suspect was not asked to interface his fingers and put them on his head, was not asked to lay face down with his legs crossed, was not asked to spin around with hands interlaced to assess for a gun, etc. The commanding officer handled things with a lot of inexperience and the way he talked/spoke was inappropriate. Police practice issuing commands calmly and sternly because aggression creates more aggression. Ergo, it's the police's fault this happened because they acted with improper conduct.

3) The girl that was told to leave was also told in an angry and offensive manner. Again, more signs of inexperience or unprofessionalism.

4) As I said - the police did not control the situation properly. There's absolutely no reason Shaver couldn't have been handcuffed especially because this was a team of police on top of the points I made above.

-Richard

 

[Cacc]

It's kinda beneath you to insult me no? Especially over an opinion.

The best way this could have been handled, was if Shaver got to walk away unharmed, no doubt. However, my point was to raise a little awareness and empathy for cops, who are being heavily shat on by everyone, including the arm chair experts. They make hard decisions in their line of work, and sometimes, they kill someone innocent.

The first time I looked at the video, I said to myself, yeah that's murder. But after rewatching some months later, I got a better understanding of why it happened, and why the cop ended up pulling the trigger.

He felt Shaver was pulling a gun. It was a me or him situation.

 

[Ken]

Ban incoming.

Ken

 

[Cacc]

^ lmfao. that'll be the day.

 

[Richard]

Lol, I live myself outside of any hierarchy so nothing is below or beneath me. If I feel like being an asshole, well God damn, that's what I'm gonna be =)

Anyway, look at the title of your thread: I believe it was justified, who agrees? Doesn't imply that you're looking for other opinions, it implies that you're looking for people to side with you. I disagreed with you and presented solid facts and information based on what I know. You respond by:

1) Belittling policeman.
2) Belittling liberals.
3) Assuming what I meant.
4) Trying to discredit what I said by questioning my background in handling "dicey" situations.

As for the awareness and empathy for cops; again, the man I consider most influential and prominent in my life is a recently retired police chief so it's not like I don't understand both sides of the coin. I agree that cops are heavily shat on because people misunderstand situations being presented, etc. but this was not a good example to draw on to make that point. I asked my friend (Dave) to review the body cam footage and he agreed that it wasn't justified and the situation didn't call for that amount of aggression. Aggression and dominance is mainly used with people who are either a) considered to be threats AND display threatening behavior (Shaver wasn't) or b) have a history of violence or gang activity.

Plus, looking at the situation; the cops did not control it properly. He was not asked to interlace his fingers and put them on his head (PROTOCOL) which reduces a suspects ability to pull a gun and fire, and he was not asked to turn around so the police could approach his behind so they could assess for a gun. A "me or him" situation was created by those on the scene so the cop's are responsible, not Shaver.

Anyway, based on how you've continued to reply I don't think you're looking for a debate/discussion so I'm exiting and my points have been made.

-Richard

 

[Cacc]

Hmm. Interesting.

What about you guys? Agree or disagree?

I said this at the bottom of my first post. Saying "who agrees" is just a way to get an opinion... Don't look too into it and assume I want to be validated.

Listen man. I don't disagree with you. If protocol had been followed correctly, this kid would be alive. I even said that a couple of times. He didn't have to die. It was a mistake on the police officers and the kid aswell.


All the things that happened before the shooting, could have been avoided for sure. But I am saying, more specifically, that the officer unloading on shaver as he puts his hand behind his back, was a justified action.

p.s: I care about your opinion just as much as u care about mine.