Posted on 12/10/2017 7:10:13 AM PST by JP1201
If you have the stomach for it, I want you to watch one of the most outrageous and infuriating videos I’ve ever seen. It shows the police shooting of Daniel Shaver in Mesa, Arizona. He was crawling on his hands and knees, crying, and begging police not to shoot him. An officer shot him anyway:
The Washington Post’s account is decent, but you have to watch the video truly grasp the strangeness of the requests:
In fact, the Post actually sugarcoats the encounter. At one point an officer tells him “do not put your hands down for any reason,” even saying, “If you think you’re going to fall, you better fall on your face.” Then he says, “Crawl towards me.” How he can crawl without putting his hands down, I don’t know. As the sobbing man crawls, he reaches back towards his pants (perhaps to pull them up) and is immediately shot dead. He had no weapon. He had done nothing wrong. And now he’s dead.
Essentially, what the police told an innocent, law-abiding, intoxicated American was this: Follow my highly-specific, very strange instructions or die. There was no need to make him crawl. The police were in command of the situation. At no point is there a visible weapon. I have seen soldiers deal with al Qaeda terrorists with more professionalism and poise. When a man is prone, his hands are visible, and your gun is trained upon him, he is in your power. At trial, the officer testified that he though the suspect was reaching for his gun, and that if he had a chance to do things over, he’d make the same decision again. In other words, he presented the classic defense. He was afraid, so he fired.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
“The shits of it is you just cant tell about cops anymore. Its like Russian roulette...”
A gun shop owner and former cop told me about a time he was transporting a bunch of guns from one store to his shop. He was stopped for speeding. Fine. The cop asked if there were any guns in the car.
“About 20 of them in the trunk”, the owner replied.
The next thing he knew the cop’s Glock was against his temple while the cop shouted, “You FN with me? You FN with me?” He tried to explain he owned a gun shop, but he ended up face down on the pavement until other cops arrived.
Said he’s been afraid of cops ever since - and he used to be one. Felt he came close to dying for giving an honest answer - one required by law in Arizona.
That is certainly not ALL cops. Not even close to a majority based on my interactions. But like you said, on any given stop, you just don’t know.
Cop sounded like he was on a power trip and played too many games of Twister. He needs locking up.
Agree.
You're right. I've been stuck in a hotel room for much of the past week where I sit at a desk with my laptop while channel surfing between CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. I don't recall any mention of this shooting on these channels. I've only read about it on-line.
I wonder what they're thinking now that they're finding out about all the things that were inadmissible in court?
Lost in the mists of time. Lemme dig...
In another place I saw a comment from a former corrections officer who had no sympathy for Brailsford, the cop who shot Shaver. The corrections officer said he had extracted violent prisoners from their cells without serious incident because he knew how to do his job. Unlike this moron Brailsford
All these "good cops" are starting to remind me of "moderate Muslims". People say they exist and make up the majority but they sure are awfully quiet.
Here ya go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxb-D25VjI8
Count the police cars, adrenaline musta been pretty high...
Amazingly enough, the suspect walked away!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6W8Dc6cjQU
Bank robbery, Stockton 3/13/2014
I agree there was realistically no excuse for the shooting. But in these cases courtrooms and instructions to juries do not necessarily deal with what would be realistic if a properly trained person was correctly executing his duties in a situation he was supposedly trained to expect and handle. They deal with what the average person’s reactions and motivations be in such a situation. The key of this being of course whether they were in fear of their lives.
I look at it this way:
Suppose 5 friends and I see a man acting erratically. Being all armed, the 6 of us pull our guns and order him to the ground. He starts crying and trying to say he did nothing, but we order him to cross his legs and crawl to us. Part way there, he makes a movement with one hand toward his hip and I shoot him 5 times, killing him. I tell folks, “I was in fear of my life”. And it turns out the dead man was unarmed.
I’m thinking, first degree murder. Something about disparity of force and who was REALLY in danger.
Cops go into dangerous situations to support life, liberty and a safe society. And I understand they need to have some belief that they can survive a career. I understand our courts are based on the idea it is better for a guilty man to go free than for government to take the liberty of an innocent man.
But in this case, government took the LIFE of an innocent man. We KNOW he wasn’t reaching for a gun and trying to kill the cop because he had no gun to reach for. Given the cop is facing that situation to defend law and order, I’m not sure 1st degree murder really fits. Second degree, beyond a reasonable doubt? Maybe, maybe not.
But SOMETHING ought to happen when the government takes the life of an innocent man. SOMETHING! If it is repulsive to society to send an innocent man to prison, how much more to kill him in a hotel hallway!
Cop with a God complex. He needs to be charged with murder!
I prize the fact that my intelligence allows me to see the point of view of both sides. I cannot determine what the actual state of mind was of this policeman, but I can say that if you do not follow the instructions of someone with an AR-15 pointed at you, and that person is law enforcement you chances are the same result will be the case.
We have the benefit of knowing that he was indeed unarmed, that the police officer did not have. Thus when he reached for his waistband to pull up his pants (assumed reason for his actions) the officer had a split second to make a choice, shot and kill him, or not shoot and possibly be shot and killed himself. I personally would never even consider being a police officer, because you are damned for sure shooting him, and may be dead if you do not.
That's why for me it is a tough call. Because I do not want to make good cops afraid to defend themselves in situations where they face real threats, nor do I want them to think they can act illegally just because they think the person is a bad person that they have in the cross hairs of their weapon.
No need to be in the court room. Bottom line in a nutshell the cop said he feared for his life so he opened up on the suspect when he moved his arm back to his rear. The jury can not prove the cop wrong and took his word for it. The cop walks.
“I don’t believe that one bit, the vast majority of LEOs abhor this as much as any of us do. Bad apples will be dealt with thru the rulé of law, as they have been in the past.”
Good one! (You were joking, right?)
One of the major networks....I think it was CBS....showed the video of this POS on the Evening News.
I guess I missed were that was mentioned in either article I read, though I assumed that was his reason. But we have seen them convicted even though they state that as the reason.
Over on Protectandserve, PoliceOne and Lawenforcementforums they are all celebrating this jury decision.
It’s actually sickening to try and read...
“All these “good cops” are starting to remind me of “moderate Muslims”. People say they exist and make up the majority but they sure are awfully quiet.”
Perfect analogy.
This was an execution by a trigger happy cop. They had plenty of opportunity to handcuff the suspect. The cop was allowed to use his own personal AR-15.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.