View Full Version : Daniel Shaver shooting vid (NSFW)
Considering for example recent Vegas event, etc, you get a call of a man pointing a gun out a window in a hotel, and that's going to a pucker factor 11 call. I watched that vid right at the point of shooting probably 10 times and it's a very tough call to make when you look at the overall picture there. He was told the very possible consequences of reaching behind his back, and made no sense why he did it while crawling.
Now, why not have the guy stay where he is, in the position the LEO instruct (face down, crossed legs, hands forward, etc) and close the distance as one LEO secures him and the other keeps him under observation at all times? What's the SOP for that with that PD? Maybe they wanted to get him away from the door opening to reduce the chances of someone popping out? I'd like to here the LE POV on that.
As ugly as that is to watch, all the factors involved, I can see how it would be viewed as a justified shooting, but from my non professional POV, a very thin line there...the officer was charged and fired, but was found not guilty. What say you?
"Body cam footage has been released showing the fatal police shooting of 26-year-old Daniel Shaver. Police were called to a hotel in Mesa, Arizona, in 2016 after a report of someone pointing a gun out of a window. Shaver, however, was unarmed. The officer, Philip Brailsford, was found not guilty of 2nd degree murder."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M62Va6Ft2cw
From what I can see in that video I don’t see a justified shoot there. There is no weapon present and unless they found one I’m not sure what his crime is. Also the officers commands were a little counter intuitive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I never like to Monday-morning (or in this case Friday-afternoon) quarterback. That said, maybe second degree murder was overreach. But if I was an attorney, based on that video, I would talk to the family about a civil suit.
I dunno....I don't know all the details, so....
From what I can see in that video I don’t see a justified shoot there. There is no weapon present and unless they found one I’m not sure what his crime is. Also the officers commands were a little counter intuitive.
Perhaps look into a the case a bit would be my suggestion and or re read my comments. Apparently he'd been waving a gun (which turned out to be an air rifle) out the window of the hotel, which why they were called. Under the influence (he was) and scared chitless, I can see for sure how the LEOs commands may have confused him (hence some of my other comments/Q on SOPs, etc) but why would he reach behind his back? Especially considering what they'd told him prior? We will never know but that LEO was clearly taking no chances to find out.
I get the call for the air gun. As for him putting his hands behind he back if he was under the influence who knows most people would because that’s how you end up anyway. But yes I will have to read more about it, either way officer is out of a job and may get beat up on a civil suite.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RetroRevolver77
12-08-17, 14:51
Cowardly murder.
From what I can see in that video I don’t see a justified shoot there. There is no weapon present and unless they found one I’m not sure what his crime is. Also the officers commands were a little counter intuitive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FWIW a weapon need not be present necessarily.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FWIW a weapon need not be present necessarily.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Perception of a weapon is the term that generally gets used.
Haven't watched the video in OP yet, but yeah if a weapon is thought to be there, overt movement...
That has gotta be the most phucked up example of police work I have ever seen.
Stop playing Simon Sez and cuff the guy. No reasonable person could ever respond to those commands in the time frame the cop wanted them, and lots of folks are not physically fit to do the things requested without losing balance.
I guess if he did not speak English they would have just shot him right off?
SomeOtherGuy
12-08-17, 15:22
Stop playing Simon Sez and cuff the guy. No reasonable person could ever respond to those commands in the time frame the cop wanted them, and lots of folks are not physically fit to do the things requested without losing balance.
My take. Nearly 4 minutes of obedience games, no point, no benefit.
If the dead guy had reached for his right waistband immediately on the officer's arrival I would see this as more of a justified shoot. But doing it after 4 minutes of stupid commands, no.
Not sure what the right charge was, but I see a criminal homicide of some kind.
Coal Dragger
12-08-17, 15:25
That cop should have been found guilty, and then he should have promptly been hanged from the neck until dead.
Paraphrasing the last interactions just before the shooting:
Police: hands straight up in the air, under no circumstances that the hands are to be put down, you will be shot. If you lose balance, better fall on your face.
Male: he complied and threw his hands straight up.
Police: crawl toward me.
Male: reached with both hands for the floor in front of him and started crawling.
Police: shot him a few times
Me: how does one crawl while kneeling on the floor with hands lifted high above one's head. I guess he could have "waddled" on his knees. Male seemed confused and violated the verbatim order to keep hands up in the air.
The cop who fired had a "you're f@#ked" dust cover on his duty rifle. No idea on the shoot, but poor judgement on the dust cover for a duty gun.
That was cold blooded murder.
When you police you have to give up the privilege of being a chickenshit.
The boy was no longer a threat. The officer was giving what I call "hokey pokey" orders. How would you like it if I pointed a loaded gun at you and said "do these commands under duress or I shoot you"?
He made a lot of threats and not many professional verbal commands.
It seems like he wanted to play hero and shoot somebody.
He was a scared kid and you could hear him choke up and cry while trying to obey.
You gotta control your adrenalin and control yourself before the scene.
I been in the shit enough to know the difference between someone pulling a fast one and someone scared.
The kid was scared and the shooting pointless.
You gotta THINK!
Law Enforcement is supposed to be a Life Saving organization.
I saw no furtive movements nor anything that warranted a shooting.
Total screw up. I felt like the guy wanted to shoot him no matter what. He never gave him a chance.
There is a difference between verbal commands and just threatening people.
All you have to do is relax. If you're that chickenshit then you dont need to police
Paraphrasing the last interactions just before the shooting:
Police: hands straight up in the air, under no circumstances that the hands are to be put down, you will be shot. If you lose balance, better fall on your face.
Male: he complied and threw his hands straight up.
Police: crawl toward me.
Male: reached with both hands for the floor in front of him and started crawling.
Police: shot him a few times
Me: how does one crawl while kneeling on the floor with hands lifted high above one's head. I guess he could have "waddled" on his knees. Male seemed confused and violated the verbatim order to keep hands up in the air.
Even if he followed commands exactly, why not go to him instead of him going to you? And why not have him face away from you so he does not see your actions?
Not a cuffing expert, but spread eagle facing away would seem to be a pretty safe position to approach from.
Some LEO please tell me what the the Simon Sez game was supposed to accomplish?
The cop who fired had a "you're f@#ked" dust cover on his duty rifle. No idea on the shoot, but poor judgement on the dust cover for a duty gun.
That Guy.
That explains a lot.
The cop who fired had a "you're f@#ked" dust cover on his duty rifle. No idea on the shoot, but poor judgement on the dust cover for a duty gun.
I bring this up from time to time and get told to go back to my "regularly scheduled political ranting"
A working rifle is not the place for Bible quotes, oohrah insignia, skulls, or profanity.
You only do what you have to and carry the equipment required for the task.
Policework is not the place to be an individual with flair
FWIW a weapon need not be present necessarily.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I always saw that as a chickenshit CYA standard.
If you had your whole life to prepare for an ambiguous situation and have all the benefit of training, experience, mentoring officers, and self control and still eff up then you shouldn't have been out there in the first place.
Tough job no doubt, but looked like murder to me.
Also for anyone out there who fantasizes about being "about it" or "murdering the badguys"
Get a good look. This is what real murder looks like.
A scared, crying young man on his knees gunned down by a buffoon with a rifle.
A real police doesnt have to remind people he has the scene. The already know.
I truly do not understand the Officer’s commands, and I’m not drunk yet. Keep your hands straight up or I’ll shoot you. Keep you feet crossed or I’ll shoot you. Now crawl to me. WTF??? How the **** is someone supposed to keep their hands up and feet crossed but crawl to you??
To me it looks like the dumbass was reaching to pull his pants up as he was pantsing himself with all the crawling.
I’ve no idea what the SOP is for holding folks at gunpoint, but the crawl to me with your hands up and feet crossed needs to change.
Not sure about murder as the guy was clearly reaching for something behind his back. When you’re responding to a call about guys waving guns out of windows after the LV fiasco, a reasonable person would assume reaching for said gun not to pull his pants up.
When you’re responding to a call about guys waving guns out of windows after the LV fiasco,
This occurred Jan 18, 2016.
a reasonable person would assume reaching for said gun not to pull his pants up.
Are you a reasonable person? Here is what you said in same post:
To me it looks like the dumbass was reaching to pull his pants up as he was pantsing himself with all the crawling.
That’s an officer who hasn’t spent a lot of time being shot at, shooting at people, or seeing the results of someone who has been shot. He is playing a role as he thinks it should be played. Or he’s a real life Farva. Either way he murdered a crying kid in cold blood.
Maybe I’m an anomaly, maybe it’s the time I spent on the ground overseas, but I just don't get that worked up over situations like that.
I recently had a friend describe to me how creeped out he was by my deadpan reaction when a round skipped over a berm when we were shooting, zinged by us and I explained how far away it actually was.
Will, it's quite possible the kid's pants were falling down from being told to crawl on his knees. It could have been a long term natural reaction to wearing jeans and no belt or a loose belt. the average citizen does not realize that putting your hands behind you is a gesture to kill a cop. As a friend of mine used to say. We ought to have the right to be stupid, but unfortunately....
As you say, we will never know.
what I find odd, and never hear it spoken of.... when civi and LEO train they always fail. Then they are taught how to succeed, then they are taken up in elevations as they wish to go to. Each level they fail, correct, succeed.
However a civilian such as this kid is given no chance to fail. He can't be emotionally compromised. He can't be mentally deficient. Plenty of people might respond 'yes I understand you' but it was clear that kid was incapable of following orders and the LEO was piss poor in giving those orders in the context of that situation. Especially to that kid.
You know, we will never know what the jury heard or saw and how they came to the conclusion they reached.
Once they had the girl the guy was a no-brainer.
I can see how it would be viewed as a justified shooting,
I can see it as manipulated murder. Remember the LEO is the paid professional and professionals in practically all industries are held to higher standards. He clearly was calling the shots. He had the guy where he wanted him then he kept on him and he -had to know- due to his level of professional training and service that he could get him to make a mistake and for whatever reason he had determined that if you make a mistake I get to kill you. Comply or die even though all my training has shown that in these situations you will make a mistake of non-compliance.
He knew he had compromised the kid the first time he put his hands behind his back. He should have had him lay back down ( never should have had him crawl to him anyway.) I'm surprised he didn't ask him to recite the alphabet backwards while he was shouting more physical instructions. There is a SEAL training documentary, I think it was a TV show. I'll never forget they were at the pool and the instructor was explaining to the commentator the concept of failure. He said, we are not here to break them. We could break every one of them in 15 minutes. That's not why we are here.
The question is not why did the kid reach for his pants. the question is... after the kid had already done so and was emotionally distraught, why did the professional press the dialog such that it could happen again. There was no need to do so. It's called plan B. We deal with plans b,c,d,e,f,g all day every day. That LEO was a one way kind of guy and his way was do or die no matter what. He watched that kid repeatedly fail and kept pressing him. There was no other expectation a reasonable person could expect other than continued failure, which it that LEO's book means death.
Based on what's there, and responding to gun out the window and all that... All I see is a gung-ho murder. You keep screaming at a compromised person that if they screw up one instruction you will kill them.... well, I can pretty well guarantee you, there will be blood on the floor in short order.
I would think the family has a wrongful death suit.
Yeah, I would rank that one up there in the disturbingly unnecessary category.
"You put your right hand in, You put your right hand out, You put your right hand in, And you shake it all about..."
Somebody will be revising policies and procedures.
I’m surprised no one pointed out that when the first round went you could see his hand coming back empty.
I think murder 2 was prosecutorial overreach. I do wonder if they had lesser crimes as an option to deliberate. If they did shame on the jury.
Douchebag cop executes kid.
Disgusting.
Official Kremlin Transmission
Will, it's quite possible the kid's pants were falling down from being told to crawl on his knees. It could have been a long term natural reaction to wearing jeans and no belt or a loose belt. the average citizen does not realize that putting your hands behind you is a gesture to kill a cop.
Which brings me to, why did he make him crawl vs what I outlined in the OP? Reasons that I suggested? Other? What this says to me, as a non LEO, is LEOs need more training and more ongoing training which only seems to be getting worse. The LEO was obviously at max adrenal dump and very fast to go to lethal response, due to a number of obvious factors, and being unable to handle the situation, perhaps compensating with gung ho pho bravado (I bet he was scared out of his mind vs any type of internal composure, but hypothesis on my end...) and that was the result. He's not fit to be a peace officer. In some cases like this this, the PD might revue and or revamp SOP, add additional training, etc, but many will simply blame the LEO, the state will pay out, and it's back to biz as usual. In the big picture beyond this event, that's what I see as the systemic issue and the elephant in the room. That guy, was not prepared for that situation, and although technically in the right as far as the jury went, a death that was in all likelihood preventable. Training costs $, and it's probably cheaper to pay the settlement that train people up to such things, and that's a horrible cost analysis. I see this event more as a symptom of a larger issue than just his being as you described per se, and I think that needs to be discussed.
LEOs can also say I'm not LE and don't know WTF I'm talking about, but worked with and around enough experienced LE to know, they know exactly what I'm talking about...
The crawling was pure laziness or ignorance and goes against the basic concept of Cover/Contact officer.
This isnt a felony traffic stop. When someone is one the ground
LEAVE THEM ON THE GROUND.
Either he is a threat and should remain in a surrender posture or he is not a threat and you are allowing him to approach.
It can't be both.
I see an over equipped and under experienced officer here.
Manslaughter would have been a solid and much needed conviction.
Instead of confusing people just tell them to lay prone and eagle with palms up. It is less fatiguing on them, less confusing, and they aren't going anywhere
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-08-17, 17:05
That has gotta be the most phucked up example of police work I have ever seen.
Stop playing Simon Sez and cuff the guy. No reasonable person could ever respond to those commands in the time frame the cop wanted them, and lots of folks are not physically fit to do the things requested without losing balance.
I guess if he did not speak English they would have just shot him right off?
That is a really good point.
Even if he followed commands exactly, why not go to him instead of him going to you? And why not have him face away from you so he does not see your actions?
Some LEO please tell me what the the Simon Sez game was supposed to accomplish?
I think they were worried about more occupants in the room.
To me it looks like the dumbass was reaching to pull his pants up as he was pantsing himself with all the crawling.
That is exactly what happened. You can see at the very start of the video the kid has long short on. With your ankles crossed, you are going to drag your pants down pretty fast.
I understand using an authoritative voice, but that was over the top and he dazed the kid with too loud, too fast and too complex.
Was that standard procedure for a take down?
I think after watching that I don't really want to be around the police when they are working and it looked really really bad.
and idiots like this are the reason the rest get such a bad name and no respect sadly
a few slip through but I often think there needs to be some flags that are noticed like the dust cover and guy fired cause of stuff like this
also seems that this is becoming more common (bad leo)
Which brings me to, why did he make him crawl vs what I outlined in the OP? Reasons that I suggested? Other? What this says to me, as a non LEO, is LEOs need more training and more ongoing training which only seems to be getting worse.
This is just my opinion, based solely on the information presented. I have ZERO reason to believe that was a "good cop that needs more training". That is why I used the term "manipulated murder"... was it premeditated? probably not... was it manipulated? It sure looks that way to me. So training for him would not be an option. That's an HR issue. Wrong guy for the job that no amount of training would likely fix.
It might be a good screening video to find the guys that think that all looks like no prob.
The cop's instructor testified that he'd have done the same thing when reviewing the body cam footage. (according to the news here)
I forget the prosecutor's name. But he came off as a douche in my opinion. i agree on the over-reach with the murder charge.
i agree on the over-reach with the murder charge.
What charge should it have been?
From my view, the cops threatened to kill him several times if he did not comply, then gave him a set of instructions no reasonable person could comply with, so then they shot him. Not sure what to charge with that.
What charge should it have been?
From my view, the cops threatened to kill him several times if he did not comply, then gave him a set of instructions no reasonable person could comply with, so then they shot him. Not sure what to charge with that.
Manslaughter.
And if Mr. Instructor stood by that shooting then he needs very much to not be instructing
Outlander Systems
12-08-17, 18:14
This.
100% ****ing this.
Homie wanted to get his blaze on, and burned a crying kid down after giving a ****ing heavy assed serving of verbal spaghetti.
What charge should it have been?
From my view, the cops threatened to kill him several times if he did not comply, then gave him a set of instructions no reasonable person could comply with, so then they shot him. Not sure what to charge with that.
The crawling was pure laziness or ignorance and goes against the basic concept of Cover/Contact officer.
This isnt a felony traffic stop. When someone is one the ground
LEAVE THEM ON THE GROUND.
Either he is a threat and should remain in a surrender posture or he is not a threat and you are allowing him to approach.
It can't be both.
I see an over equipped and under experienced officer here.
Manslaughter would have been a solid and much needed conviction.
Instead of confusing people just tell them to lay prone and eagle with palms up. It is less fatiguing on them, less confusing, and they aren't going anywhere
Finally! That's what I wanted to know from LEO who could answer my Q on that as I could not figure out the purpose, other than an attempt to give the officer the benefit of the doubt in that perhaps he wanted him away from the doorway for some reason. Otherwise, truly an event that didn't need to happen. It seems common for prosecutors to over shoot the charge and not get a conviction. Manslaughter probably would have been a done deal and he earned it.
This police officer is going to go down for shooting an unarmed man for failing to crawl with his hands up in the air. The officers instructions were lousy and unprofessional, especially when the recipient of those instructions is scared to death, crying, unable to think and being told "we will kill you". How does one crawl with his hands up in the air? Why didn't they use a tazer or even approach him when his hands were up in the air?
The thing that scared me is this: This could happen to any one of us. And if they let this cop off the hook, it may change how some view the police departments. Right now, its popular to say "back the blue", "support law enforcement" but I know many people on this forum have mixed feeling as of lately with all the over reach, unarmed shootings and attitude from law enforcement and how when something like this happens, the whole police force take the officers side. But rest assure that when an officered is mowed down while he is "just doing his job", there is no 2 sides to the story, there just 1 side to the story.
What charge should it have been?
From my view, the cops threatened to kill him several times if he did not comply, then gave him a set of instructions no reasonable person could comply with, so then they shot him. Not sure what to charge with that.
The LEO thought he was legally justified in applying deadly force, but was not. My opinion is based solely on the information in the video, I haven't read the trial transcripts. Manslaughter may have been a better charge.
People often fail to listen to instructions under stress. Stone axe simple instructions are often not followed due to confusion and misunderstanding, not defiance. BTDT dozens of times. The fewer instructions and the less movement, the better.
I don't understand why they had the suspect move, perhaps that is how the officer was trained. Maybe they felt moving farther down the hall would place them in the fatal funnel, I don't know. Once the suspect's hands are where you feel they are the least threat, why would you have them move them to a place that makes you more uncomfortable? Most people "crawl" on their hands and knees. I'll have to do a little research on the technique the officer giving instructions used to control the suspect. Maybe having the suspect move like an inchworm with his hands out in front of him would have been a better option.
I am strongly opposed to having a suspect cross their legs due to inmates training to do the "roll" on a police officer when they approach from the side or rear. We practiced doing this to each other during C.A.T. Training.
Flame me all you want but this is a good shoot.
Here's my take.....
Cop with the rifle is NOT giving instructions. His job is to cover the bad guy and that was it. The bad guy made a movement to the small of his back for the second time and got lit up. What the cop didn't do was hesitate. Hesitation gets cops killed, period, end of story.
NOW I will critique the guy giving commands....
Guy was a douche.
The longer you give commands, no matter how to the point and specific you are, the subjects get nervous and stressed.
The cops had two jobs. Detain the visible suspects and hold the hallway in case there were others hiding ready to ambush.
The cop giving commands, although he thought that he was doing what he did to be specific and take away the chance to make the bad guy think, confused the hell out of him and essentially got the bad guy killed. It's my opinion that if you want to pin responsibility on who got that kid killed, it was the guy giving commands.
I'll steal Outlander's words and say verbal spaghetti got the kid killed.
I have also seen bad guys work themselves up to committing assault on police. In their minds, they have the weapon to commit the crime but need to gather the balls to make action.
Here's how it should have been done.....
Lay on the ground
arms out to your side
palms up
don't move or you will be shot.
Two guys go secure the bad guys (not at the same time) and one guy holds the hallway.
DONE no one dead.
leibermuster
12-08-17, 18:38
This is the worst policing I have ever seen on video. If you are a cop and think this is fine. A serious psychological evaluation must be done on you.
This cop seems mentally retarded. His assessment of the situation is completely absent to the reality in front of him. From the video alone I could tell the suspects are hardly a drop off threat.
This guys badge should be pulled. If you are a cop thinking this is fine.
Quit being a cop today.
I can’t see the cops of old being this disconnected.
No amount of training can fix this type of idiotic reaction to a suspects being treated like that.
This cop acted as if this guy was the worlds most dangerous man. The suspects were not Isis, no ied threat. The suspect was whimpering. I don’t know. Overreaction. Pure stupid.
Generations of bad genes and police departments hiring losers from high school or something.
Bizarre.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree with your take on the commands Cory. More than once during my career, during stress confrontations, I told another officer to STFU.
Screaming, as Jack Bauer did all the time, tends to make things worse, not better. It also applies to suspects and other officers alike.
I agree with your take on the commands Cory. More than once during my career, during stress confrontations, I told another officer to STFU.
Screaming, as Jack Bauer did all the time, tends to make things worse, not better. It also applies to suspects and other officers alike.
You wanna give clear commands like youb
are talking to a 5 year old.
Clear. Simple. Direct.
If you have total scene control, no threats or profanity. Even a few "Please"s help.
You want, at a core level, these people to trust you, that you are only doing your job, and that they are people.
If you are throwing blows and swapping led then the F bombs can fly as it is on like donkey kong. But if you got a M4 on a guy and he's sobbing up then he probably isn't going to be the blaze of glory guy.
Also I am reticent to call the subjects bad guys. I haven't seen yet where they committed a crine. Some nosy nelly can SAY they were pointing a gun out the window but that hasnt been proven.
You roll the dice everytime you tool up. Could be something, could be nothing. You ARE the canary in the coal mine.
You can't overreact nor underreact.
Everything is fluid and dynamic.
If you had your whole life to prepare for an ambiguous situation and have all the benefit of training, experience, mentoring officers, and self control and still eff up then you shouldn't have been out there in the first place.
There is that. Is some cases the mentoring officers and/or agency training environment can result in what started as a well-intentioned officer ending up doing something that many find objectionable.
About 20 years ago I started telling the officers I trained that society was expecting more and more of it's police officers and the 'It's a hard job, I was doing the best I could under the circumstances' wasn't going to cut it anymore.
Those days are closing in.
As my friends here know in that line of work I am very pro LE but that was disgusting to watch. Utterly pathetic in every way top to bottom.
vicious_cb
12-08-17, 19:27
When the victim couldnt even put his left foot over his right foot after a couple of tries thats probably a hint that your commands are too much. This was not a good shoot, no matter how you look at it. You can say he was reaching all you want, a civilian would never have been justified if they used that reasoning so why should LEO?
The only LE work I have done/do is on the Sheriff's Mounted Posse for back-country tracking or search & rescue. So I am not going to get into LE slamming, but here are my thoughts on this.
Two officers were present. Once the female was moved to the rear and cuffed, couldn't the officer barking out all the commands just have told the guy on his knees to lay face down, arms outstretched and remain silent until the 2nd officer could move forward and cuff him? Wouldn't that have been so much easier than having the soon to be dead suspect going thru a series of movements? The shooting officer also seems to be too amped up for what he was doing. I wouldn't have wanted that guy near me in a combat situation when I was active duty.
This is just my opinion, based solely on the information presented. I have ZERO reason to believe that was a "good cop that needs more training". That is why I used the term "manipulated murder"... was it premeditated? probably not... was it manipulated? It sure looks that way to me. So training for him would not be an option. That's an HR issue. Wrong guy for the job that no amount of training would likely fix.
It might be a good screening video to find the guys that think that all looks like no prob.
I didn't infer he was, or was not, a "good" cop who just lacked training per se. My position was more that many LEOs are simply not trained adequately and ongoing in some key areas that would likely see less if that, as well as less dead LEOs. But, as for him, you could be 100% right, I just don't know. I think he was over compensating from the fear, or, he could just be a hole.
That's not the worst vid I have even seen this week BTW. There's another event that makes this one look like a good shoot. It's very sad.
Even if he followed commands exactly, why not go to him instead of him going to you? And why not have him face away from you so he does not see your actions?
Your first point - Generally what works best is to bring the suspect to you, after a visual search, rather than to approach a potentially armed suspect.
Your second point is also a good one to discuss. The officer could have been worried about the guy conversing or signaling someone posted up in the doorway of the room he had exited from and thus chose to have him face him. Although I doubt that was the reason, more than likely a default response
You have to be agile enough mentally to determine what is best situationaly. If the guy is facing away from you and he drops his hands to his waist you can't see what he is doing - but he also can't see you, so even if he gets a weapon you have a chance to ID a weapon before he tracks you and shoots. On the other hand, facing you, you get to see his hands the whole time, the downside is he is also looking at you.
This guy was what I would call a compliant felon. If the officers we trained followed what they were taught and practiced, they would have done a visual search of the subject's waistband by having him lift his shirt and turning. This involves verbal commands that have to be clearly conveyed and understood. I think this guy demonstrated the ability to follow those commands. This calls for the officer to possess the mental agility to determine when to use 'gym talk' and when to simply order the guy down. This requires practice and mentoring. Unfortunately LE tends to want a one hammer approach.
One of the problems with video games, and improperly conducted force-on-force or force-simulator training, is that officers can be taught, or teach themselves to shoot before a weapon is identified. I loved the Roger's Shooting School, it really sped me up, but I understood that I would have to slow myself down to ID threats in the real world.
In this case, I believe the officer shot on movement. Probably as a result of doing so in training.
Their are some that will say that if the officer waits to ID the weapon, they will be endangered. This is the nature of the job, some aren't willing to accept that.
Flame me all you want but this is a good shoot.
Here's my take.....
Cop with the rifle is NOT giving instructions. His job is to cover the bad guy and that was it. The bad guy made a movement to the small of his back for the second time and got lit up. What the cop didn't do was hesitate. Hesitation gets cops killed, period, end of story.
NOW I will critique the guy giving commands....
Guy was a douche.
The longer you give commands, no matter how to the point and specific you are, the subjects get nervous and stressed.
The cops had two jobs. Detain the visible suspects and hold the hallway in case there were others hiding ready to ambush.
The cop giving commands, although he thought that he was doing what he did to be specific and take away the chance to make the bad guy think, confused the hell out of him and essentially got the bad guy killed. It's my opinion that if you want to pin responsibility on who got that kid killed, it was the guy giving commands.
I'll steal Outlander's words and say verbal spaghetti got the kid killed.
I have also seen bad guys work themselves up to committing assault on police. In their minds, they have the weapon to commit the crime but need to gather the balls to make action.
Here's how it should have been done.....
Lay on the ground
arms out to your side
palms up
don't move or you will be shot.
Two guys go secure the bad guys (not at the same time) and one guy holds the hallway.
DONE no one dead.
I had no idea. That's a game changer in many ways. First time I'd heard that. Didn't even occur to me they were not the same person. Reminds of that shooing of he homeless guy on the hill who was shot. Cop giving the orders was confusing, and the guy covering him ended up shooting the guy.
I think murder 2 was prosecutorial overreach. I do wonder if they had lesser crimes as an option to deliberate. If they did shame on the jury.
Don't know the background of the case, but in some cases I believe that charging too high is intentional, in order to get the officer acquitted.
Flame me all you want but this is a good shoot.
Here's my take.....
Cop with the rifle is NOT giving instructions. His job is to cover the bad guy and that was it. The bad guy made a movement to the small of his back for the second time and got lit up. What the cop didn't do was hesitate. Hesitation gets cops killed, period, end of story.
NOW I will critique the guy giving commands....
Guy was a douche.
The longer you give commands, no matter how to the point and specific you are, the subjects get nervous and stressed.
The cops had two jobs. Detain the visible suspects and hold the hallway in case there were others hiding ready to ambush.
The cop giving commands, although he thought that he was doing what he did to be specific and take away the chance to make the bad guy think, confused the hell out of him and essentially got the bad guy killed. It's my opinion that if you want to pin responsibility on who got that kid killed, it was the guy giving commands.
I'll steal Outlander's words and say verbal spaghetti got the kid killed.
I have also seen bad guys work themselves up to committing assault on police. In their minds, they have the weapon to commit the crime but need to gather the balls to make action.
Here's how it should have been done.....
Lay on the ground
arms out to your side
palms up
don't move or you will be shot.
Two guys go secure the bad guys (not at the same time) and one guy holds the hallway.
DONE no one dead.
The kid was sobbing and immediately trying to comply with every command that was given. How about some de-escalation? It was murder.
dwhitehorne
12-08-17, 19:58
They just showed the video on the news right before I saw it here. So the non-leo here in the thread see that shootings aren't pretty and the ones I've reviewed aren't always clear cut. My department teaches to call people out of the hallway towards us if there are doors between us. I must say I've never seen a crawling command. Some were asking about SOP's. There really aren't that many at the patrol level. We qualify with weapons, not really training with them. Departments that do conduct training don't usually pair officer up to run the courses together autonomously like they would on the street.
The commands are what they are. The officers now all know that they are on the camera and this one seemed to be talking it up for the recording. Unfortunately all the officers in this thread work with people that you would not want to be on this scene with. You all know who I am talking about. My department specifically has in the General Orders that the officer will ID and challenge when feasible. The challenge is "Police, Don't move" then someone is suppose to take control of the scene and give commands. Constantly you have one officer yell don't move and another yelling show me your hands at the same time. As a Patrol Sgt I've had to actually had to run over and grab an officer by the collar to settle him down. It can turn into a cluster really quick.
Law Enforcement has been really fortunate over the past 20 years with a Supreme Court that has been very understanding of the fluid nature of a high stress situation. Part of my job as a supervisor in training is to take care of the officers, but I continue to review Use of Force incidents where I'm thinking what the hell did you do that for. We in Law Enforcement have known for years the domestic case, the bar fight, extracting someone from a vehicle and the shooting of another human being is not a pretty sight to watch. Now that everything is on camera the public now sees how screwed up these situations quickly become. The officer in the video technically probably followed procedures but it looks like it could have been handled better. David
The kid was sobbing and immediately trying to comply with every command that was given. How about some de-escalation? It was murder.
I agree with everything you said except the murder part. The guy went behind his back three times. Hands kill.
Has anyone here ever been a firearms instructor or a student in a firearms class where the shooter became so overwhelmed with the drill that they just lock up and make crazy mistakes? I've seen it many many times. It's due to stress overload. That's exactly what the cop giving commands did to the victim.
That kid made a fatal mistake directly related to horrible commands by the officer.
And there were at least 4 officers in that hallway...
The kid was sobbing and immediately trying to comply with every command that was given. How about some de-escalation? It was murder.
You are 110% correct.
This is the worst policing I have ever seen on video. If you are a cop and think this is fine. A serious psychological evaluation must be done on you.
Then you are lucky my friend, try this one on for size: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU0Imk2Bstg (run the volume high)
There are a number of folks in law enforcement who shouldn't be there, IMO like the guys on the video above, but there are more who try to do a good job. Often they are hampered by inadequate or improper training.
Honestly, don't know where this guy fell on the spectrum.
David, you touched on something long swept under the rug.
Officers get qualed but not really trained.
Huge difference.
Most dept standards are a sick joke and people still struggle. Shooting once a year is as much as some ever do. Or worse, they go off and shoot "their way" and develop sloppy habits.
I was lucky, and I do emphasize lucky, that I got selected for more advanced training. I had to face hard truths about my own proficiency and overcome them.
Your average officer just is not where they could be. Nobody teaches force on force, de-escalation, crisis intervention, high risk arrest, etc.
The high end guys will never encounter the everyday hazards of patrol. Of being a First Responder.
The guy who is first in needs to be competent and squared away. There are a lot of wrong answers.
If officers got better training tge lawsuits would go down.
You're not a Marine or an Army Ranger, not everybody is Dillinger. It's a thinking man's game. If all you can do is bark and draw a weapon then you aren't accomplishing much.
This may be some people's only interaction with the police and they will judge all others accordingly.
Yes, policework is heartbreaking. Soul-crushing. Frustrating. Depressing. Terrifying. Disgusting.
And any policeman who says he hasnt had to go off somewhere and weep into his hands is either so rookie as to be irrelevant or a liar.
But the public doesn't have to see that.
Most people are just caught in a bad situation.
My personal mantra is "People come first".
And I have more tools than a hammer because not everything is a nail.
If folks wanna be like Tackleberry who zapped that boy
www.goarmy.com
www.marines.com
and if you don't qualify
http://en.legion-recrute.com
I'm sure they'd just be thrilled to have an easily spun up jackass...
5.56 Bonded SP
12-08-17, 20:47
Was that standard procedure for a take down?
No.
I could tell somewhere inside he was trying to follow his training, but he was so amped up he couldn't think right, either that or he is a sociopath. It was like watching a really drunk girl try to sing karaoke at the bar, but instead of knowing the words and melody of the song she just yells really loud. The guy had no composure, and screwed up his commands royally which resulted in him killing an innocent kid. Now if that cop isn't a sociopath, he is going to have to live with that guilt for the rest of his life. He will probably end up eating his own gun.
The messed up thing is, I wouldn't have been surprised if the kid was actually reaching for a gun, that was my first thought as well, but I sure as shit would NOT have shot the kid. The cop was so poorly composed, and unprofessional while giving unattainable commands; that there was no reasonable way for anyone to follow his instructions.
At the end of the day, the blood of that kid is on the cops hands, and it is directly that officers fault an innocent life was lost. Hopefully police academies use this video as a training tool for cadets.
I do my best to try and never yell at people. I am usually very put off by other officers who yell/scream at anyone unnecessarily, and I don't want to work with them. In fact, I will and have reported them to my chain of command. I think having a calm collected attitude helps people in crisis feel safe, and want to work with you more. Treating people like human beings usually makes things easier for both parties, but sometimes that doesn't work. However, this can be easier said than done in certain situations.
When I first saw this video on Facebook, I didn't want to watch it. I knew it was going to be f*cked. I feel horrible for the kid that got shot and his family. The kid was probably drunk/high, and was probably completely scared and confused for the last few minutes of his life.
I had no idea. That's a game changer in many ways. First time I'd heard that. Didn't even occur to me they were not the same person. Reminds of that shooing of he homeless guy on the hill who was shot. Cop giving the orders was confusing, and the guy covering him ended up shooting the guy.
The cop giving the commands was the one who couldn't figure out how to use the key card for the door at the end....
That cop was trying to be important and got that kid shot.
5.56 Bonded SP
12-08-17, 20:54
Their are some that will say that if the officer waits to ID the weapon, they will be endangered. This is the nature of the job, some aren't willing to accept that.
I agree with this, and actually experienced what you describe more than once. I've never unholstered my sidearm without ID of a weapon, even when I was alone and considered my life in danger. Whether it was right or wrong, nobody lost their life. However, no two situations are identical.
I think since the cops arrived with their rifles, they probably thought they were responding to an active shooter, which is still no excuse for the actions displayed by the officer.
That cop was trying to be important and got that kid shot.
Best summation in the thread.
Leave ego at home.
That's not the worst vid I have even seen this week BTW. There's another event that makes this one look like a good shoot. It's very sad.
Holy cow, let's hope they don't start grading on a curve.
The cop giving the commands was the one who couldn't figure out how to use the key card for the door at the end....
That cop was trying to be important and got that kid shot.
The only way I can get to good shoot on that one is to put on blinders.
Kid reaches around back, looks like pulling your wallet out, pulling your pants up, pulling a gun. Can't tell bang bang bang.
I have to put on a mental mask and filter out the additional reality taking place at the same time. More importantly I have to completely ignore the fact the collective of LEO allowed things to get to that point when it was clear it didn't have to happen that way.
So if I put my blinders on, put my reality mask on, wind the video to where the kid reaches around back and up through the shots fired , then yeah, that little stand alone few seconds of a portion of reality is a good shoot.
When you take the blinders and mask off and rewind the tape then it's whoa, wait a minute, you guys f'd up royally.
The incident in it's totality is not a "good" anything.
I can't believe I am saying this but I sure as hell hope that cop gets ass-rapped in Civil Court.
He should have gone down for murder.
I agree with everything you said except the murder part. The guy went behind his back three times. Hands kill.
Has anyone here ever been a firearms instructor or a student in a firearms class where the shooter became so overwhelmed with the drill that they just lock up and make crazy mistakes? I've seen it many many times. It's due to stress overload. That's exactly what the cop giving commands did to the victim.
That kid made a fatal mistake directly related to horrible commands by the officer.
And there were at least 4 officers in that hallway...
And three times his hands came back empty as he was crying and sobbing. This kid was never a threat.
It’s that mentality that killed this guy. Hands don’t kill. Not from 10 feet away. Weapons in hands kill, and this kids hands were empty. When the first shot broke you could see his empty hand swinging around. That logic didn’t fly in Iraq- it damn sure shouldn’t fly in AZ. I’m sick of cops swinging the sword of righteousness behind the thin blue line theory, which has been proven wrong time and time again. You signed up to fight the bad people, you know it before you even became a cop- that doesn’t give you the benefit of the doubt. If anything you are held to a higher standard.
It’s like cops getting mad at felons- that’s what felons do, why are you surprised?
Are you a reasonable person? Here is what you said in same post:
To me it looks like the dumbass was reaching to pull his pants up as he was pantsing himself with all the crawling.
I consider myself a responsible person, but being a responsible person who can stop the tape a few times and rewind is different that a responsible person who can’t do that. I came to the conclusion that he was reaching fir his pants after viewing the tape a few times. First time I saw it I didn’t make the connection that his pants were coming off.
This is a bad shoot brought about by a storm of stupid. The kid was stupid for apparently waving a gun about in a hotel room and being seen. If he was drunk then he doubled down on stupid. The cops issued idiotic commands that set up what appears to be a person incapable of thinking clearly (doesn’t know left from right) for failure.
The cops on the scene were obviously ill prepared and inexperienced in executing whatever training they had.
I consider myself a responsible person, but being a responsible person who can stop the tape a few times and rewind is different that a responsible person who can’t do that. I came to the conclusion that he was reaching fir his pants after viewing the tape a few times. First time I saw it I didn’t make the connection that his pants were coming off.
This is a bad shoot brought about by a storm of stupid. The kid was stupid for apparently waving a gun about in a hotel room and being seen. If he was drunk then he doubled down on stupid. The cops issued idiotic commands that set up what appears to be a person incapable of thinking clearly (doesn’t know left from right) for failure.
The cops on the scene were obviously ill prepared and inexperienced in executing whatever training they had.
I read elsewhere he was .28 BAC
RetroRevolver77
12-08-17, 22:09
A sociopath got a badge and murdered some kid. Justice still needs to prevail.
I read elsewhere he was .28 BAC
??? for his weight wouldn't that be near death? ( no pun intended )
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa-breaking/2017/12/07/philip-brailsford-verdict-daniel-shaver-killing/927052001/
MountainRaven
12-08-17, 22:47
Flame me all you want but this is a good shoot.
Here's my take.....
Cop with the rifle is NOT giving instructions. His job is to cover the bad guy and that was it. The bad guy made a movement to the small of his back for the second time and got lit up. What the cop didn't do was hesitate. Hesitation gets cops killed, period, end of story.
NOW I will critique the guy giving commands....
Guy was a douche.
The longer you give commands, no matter how to the point and specific you are, the subjects get nervous and stressed.
The cops had two jobs. Detain the visible suspects and hold the hallway in case there were others hiding ready to ambush.
The cop giving commands, although he thought that he was doing what he did to be specific and take away the chance to make the bad guy think, confused the hell out of him and essentially got the bad guy killed. It's my opinion that if you want to pin responsibility on who got that kid killed, it was the guy giving commands.
I'll steal Outlander's words and say verbal spaghetti got the kid killed.
I have also seen bad guys work themselves up to committing assault on police. In their minds, they have the weapon to commit the crime but need to gather the balls to make action.
Here's how it should have been done.....
Lay on the ground
arms out to your side
palms up
don't move or you will be shot.
Two guys go secure the bad guys (not at the same time) and one guy holds the hallway.
DONE no one dead.
The bad guy or bad guys had badges, in this instance.
I just can't believe that, "Well, he was reaching for something!" Equals "It's OK for me to shoot him in the face five times with a rifle from 10 feet away. He MIGHT have had something!" There was no PID. I don't understand people who become police officers and then when confronted with a firearm or a situation like this become so risk adverse that the idea of even slightly endangering themselves goes right out the window. It's like the cop who shoots someone in the chest then waits ten minutes for backup to arrive as the dude aspirates to death on the ground because he couldn't possibly close the distance and develop the situation... Because hands kill and officer Joe Bob in such and such a city died trying to do that.
There would be 90 percent less recruits if there wasn't a free pistol in the job description. Man up, grow up, and do your damn job without emotion(within reason).
I just can't believe that, "Well, he was reaching for something!" Equals "It's OK for me to shoot him in the face five times with a rifle from 10 feet away. He MIGHT have had something!" There was no PID. I don't understand people who become police officers and then when confronted with a firearm or a situation like this become so risk adverse that the idea of even slightly endangering themselves goes right out the window. It's like the cop who shoots someone in the chest then waits ten minutes for backup to arrive as the dude aspirates to death on the ground because he couldn't possibly close the distance and develop the situation... Because hands kill and officer Joe Bob in such and such a city died trying to do that.
There would be 90 percent less recruits if there wasn't a free pistol in the job description. Man up, grow up, and do your damn job without emotion(within reason).
Preach it brother. But that is how it is. I have young cop friends who think they should not even have to scuff their uniform. Comply or die. Then I have older cop friends, who say in my day we had to have a throwdown for these situations. Times sure have changed.
Langley, one of six officers in the hallway and who has since retired from the force and moved to the Philippines, warned Shaver would get shot if he put his hands down again, the video shows.
Shaver began to cry and said, "Please don't shoot me."
Trying to follow Langley's commands, Shaver began to crawl on his hands and knees toward the officers, the video shows. But Shaver stopped crawling and raised his right hand near his waistband, prompting Brailsford to fire.
Nate Gafvert, president of the Mesa police union, which has supported Brailsford. "We feel these charges should never have been filed in the first place.”
Move along. Nothing to see here.
SomeOtherGuy
12-08-17, 23:07
??? for his weight wouldn't that be near death? ( no pun intended )
BAC is a percentage, so the guy's weight isn't relevant.
.28 BAC is super drunk, and for someone who doesn't have a very high tolerance (generally from being an alcoholic) it would be passed out, or at least completely non-functional, and very sick. For someone who is a chronic alcoholic they could be basically functional and still able to walk (badly) and operate a car (very badly). I know, two relatives were killed by a drunk driver who had a .33 BAC. He made it a couple miles down the road from the bar where he had been drinking for two days straight (with a brief interruption when the bar was closed).
Sorry but a bad shoot. Cop should be in jail. 4 minutes of commands, give me a break. Usually I am pro cop but this instance this former officer should be doing hard time.
I only have the video to view, but at this point I would vote to convict the officer of murder.
I just can't believe that, "Well, he was reaching for something!" Equals "It's OK for me to shoot him in the face five times with a rifle from 10 feet away. He MIGHT have had something!" There was no PID. I don't understand people who become police officers and then when confronted with a firearm or a situation like this become so risk adverse that the idea of even slightly endangering themselves goes right out the window. It's like the cop who shoots someone in the chest then waits ten minutes for backup to arrive as the dude aspirates to death on the ground because he couldn't possibly close the distance and develop the situation... Because hands kill and officer Joe Bob in such and such a city died trying to do that.
There would be 90 percent less recruits if there wasn't a free pistol in the job description. Man up, grow up, and do your damn job without emotion(within reason).
So. Much. This.
Go ask some of these new breed if they would still have an attitude if they didn't have a gun.
The eye rolling is very telling.
"But we're outgunned!"
Not really. There are men who can go to some raunchy places with a single stack .45 and get it done and them there are chumps with M4s who can't write a parking ticket without backup.
In the day you had to know your shit upside down in the dark and backwards just to get the privilege of a shotgun.
Now they are giving man-baby cops M4s.
If everybody went back to 1911s and 357s tomorrow it wouldnt break my heart. All I ask is for some hot .38 Super and an N Frame 4". Hell gimme an 03A3 for a Patrol Rifle. Or another M14. For like no shit stuff.
Would. Not. Skip. A. Beat.
Meh...kids still dead. I doubt Coppy-poo is sweating anything but the civil suit which wont matter because even if they award umpteen million dollars he wont be able to pay. They might garmish his pay or lien his property (if he has any). And in his heart of hearts he most likely truly believes he " had to get it on. The guy was making a move. He HAD to get it on".
And on a long enough timeline some other bozo will waste another human being because he binge watches Live PD and thinks he's saving the world.
All I will say is I get real skeptical of anybody these days from Joe Slicksleeve to Chief Lardass.
But to the functioning silent majority out there with brains keeping things moving. God bless and keep you
I have watched the video a couple times. And it has changed my opinion on the shooting.
Originally I was for conviction but now not so much. No he didn't handle every thing perfectly. However the escalation point was when the guy reached behind his back. He was warned at that point. Then while crawling he did so again, which is when he was shot. There are many parts of how the officer handled this that I don't like. However the guy did reach behind him yet again after being warned not too.
I have watched the video a couple times. And it has changed my opinion on the shooting.
Originally I was for conviction but now not so much. No he didn't handle every thing perfectly. However the escalation point was when the guy reached behind his back. He was warned at that point. Then while crawling he did so again, which is when he was shot. There are many parts of how the officer handled this that I don't like. However the guy did reach behind him yet again after being warned not too.
If you watch and notice, the boy was putting his hands behind his back anticipating being handcuffed.
He was compliant to a fault even when the commands were highly illogical.
If he'd just laid spread eagle with palms up and didnt move he might've lived.....maybe.
I think Ofc Dumbass just wanted trigger time
Six cops in that hallway and not one had the balls to walk up and put the cuffs on a drunk kid. The shooter pulled the trigger at least 4 times with an empty hand in plain view. Kid was trying to comply with confusing instructions, why not have him turn around and pull his shirt up or off is you suspect he is armed? Shooter was trigger happy and whoever was shouting commands was a total dumb ass. A drunk kid whose job was shooting birds inside Walmart stores with a pellet rifle was killed because someone saw him showing off his pellet rifle inside his hotel room and called the police and not one real police officer showed up.
m1a_scoutguy
12-09-17, 01:27
That has gotta be the most phucked up example of police work I have ever seen.
Stop playing Simon Sez and cuff the guy. No reasonable person could ever respond to those commands in the time frame the cop wanted them, and lots of folks are not physically fit to do the things requested without losing balance.
I guess if he did not speak English they would have just shot him right off?
Cop is a idiot,,period ! I have several friends that are LEO and this guy needed remedial training times 10 !!! Its a potential life and death moment but the kid was a nervous wreck with the Officer yelling silly/inconsistent orders. Why didn't the other officer just go cuff him with the clown cop covering him ! I know times are tough and life is tougher but he was wrong on this one. Sucks for everyone involved for sure.
The basics went totally out the window. Hands up, hands out,lay down, crawl here, stop, go- convoluted commands to an intoxicated kid. Cover/contact procedures for felony takedown is just basic stuff straight out of the academy that none of these officers followed.
ramairthree
12-09-17, 05:21
I am not LE.
I have seen people shot for less.
I have seen restraint and what would have been a good to go killing end up a capture.
Of the handful of LE shooting videos I have seen,
The was a guy that straight up murdered a guy getting out of a truck. And then start policing up his brass. Good skill, but murder.
There were some ass clowns that rolled to a barricaded armed guys home. Did not fund on Eotechs on the way. Flagged each other. Froze in door. Then bunched up in fatal funnel as more and more assclowns joined the, good shoot, but total ass clowns.
A recent one where a patrol cop rolls up, traps his carbine, and does a commendable professional job. Good shoot, professional behavior.
This, trying to be professional but not keeping it together. I have no idea how for put hands in air, cross legs, and crawl while still on my knees. They already let him slide with hands to small of back once. That right hand to small of back I would have chocked up to going for a gun or igniter for his suicide belt. I would have lit him up also. So, it was a us citizen on US soil drunk and being a dumbass in good light instead of a savage outside of Mosul at an IED makers house in the middle of the night. Sorry. Sad how it ended. But don’t wave firearms out your hotel window if you don’t want this kind of attention. If I was on the jury I would not have voted guilty of murder.
dwhitehorne
12-09-17, 06:23
??? for his weight wouldn't that be near death? ( no pun intended )
No, we don't have to make it a mandatory hospital case until they blow a .35
Ram you have extremely poor judgement and we are all thankful you are not a police officer.
The cop giving the commands was the one who couldn't figure out how to use the key card for the door at the end....
That cop was trying to be important and got that kid shot.
That's unacceptable.
.
Holy cow, let's hope they don't start grading on a curve.
Here ya go. Per the OP, I did all I could to give that LEO the benefit of the doubt. On this one, LEO is screwed. I suspect he heard the bean bag fire, brain registered it as gun fire, and he burned the kid down. Again, they are going for murder 2. Is SOP not usually to announce use of a the less lethal to avoid exactly that? It was dark, so likely didn't know it was a bean bag, or least I suspect that will be his defense:
"Police said Sweeney and Officer Troy Nitzke responded to a report of a suicidal person that night and found Pigeon trying to set fire to himself with a lighter fluid and a lighter in a residential neighborhood. Police say the Nitzke shot Pigeon with a bean bag, to no effect, before Sweeney fatally shot him.
An investigating officer wrote in an affidavit that Pigeon was "not a threat" to the officers when he was shot and Sweeney's "use of deadly force ... was not justified."
Both officers were placed on paid leave while the shooting was investigated. Court documents do not list an attorney for Sweeney."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/05/oklahoma-city-officer-charged-in-fatal-shooting-man.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTFT_eJoscM
If you watch and notice, the boy was putting his hands behind his back anticipating being handcuffed.
He was compliant to a fault even when the commands were highly illogical.
If he'd just laid spread eagle with palms up and didnt move he might've lived.....maybe.
I think Ofc Dumbass just wanted trigger time
I'm still perplexed as to why that's not what happened.
Op looks clearly justified IMO. Maybe not good police work, but dude clearly was acting suspicious and reached behind his back, then pulled his arm up like he was pulling a weapon from his back.
Edit watched the whole thing. Commands are pretty messed up. Seemed like the cop was trying to figure out how the handle the situation as it played out. I doubt he was purposefully malicious, but I’d chalk it up to negligence.
Averageman
12-09-17, 08:23
I have a Son that age, I work with young Soldiers everyday.
What I have noticed and some of this might just be a viewpoint based on the reaction these guys have to very stressful conditions is, "The stress level the guy in charge has is contagious to the younger people around him."
I can't do my best work when someone is shouting, either can you. In a life and death situation it is even worse.
So if you are screaming at someone, especially an older male in authority at screaming at a powerless young male subordinate or in this case a suspect, you'll get one of two results.
Total confusion and a collapse of the thought process.
or
Open defiance after they get past the confusion and understand the guy shouting doesn't have a clue what he wants or what he is doing.
I'm pretty sure that observation is totally politically incorrect, but it is based on my experience.
If you want a result, you're going to have to know your target (no pun intended) audience and adjust your stress level accordingly.
I know that sounds like it doesn't work in Law Enforcement, but you want to remain vigilant, in control and ramp down the stress if you are dealing with someone that age.
Murder. The officers flagrant disregard for professionalism is immediately apparent in his very first utterance. Nozzle,Douche, Class I. 1ea.
The profanity and repeated threats to "kill" I found very unsettling in their use by supposed proffessionals. His tone pretty much prophecized the filthy excuse for police work that was about to go down on account of this terrifying Tackleberry/Farva hybrid daywalkers quest for his cool oldman grizzled cop stories.
I find it extremely terrifying because I or anyone of us or our friends and loved ones had been the person just coming out of a random hotel room or rounding the hallway corner from the ice machine to found themselves the next unwitting contestant of life or death simon sez, thick blue line edition.
Tact and calm professionalism. Just because someone liked drawing police cars and hated the bad guys as a kid doesnt mean we as a society "owe" them any sort of future in policing. I bet this officer would make a great lingerie football league coach though. Less dangerous, he gets to profanely yell absurd directions and threats and women will pay attetion to him.
Outlander Systems
12-09-17, 09:27
This shit is unacceptable on a civilian weapon, let alone a patrol rifle.
https://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/yourefd_1459294715042_35083524_ver1.0_640_480.jpg
The above speaks volumes about the murderer's mindset, and lack of discernment as a LEO.
Many have commented on how the instructions given to the young man were impossible to follow. Yet the young lady was able to follow them almost flawlessly. I'm not sure what to make of that. Maybe he was more intoxicated, less coordinated or maybe just not as bright. Allegedly, he was the one waving a firearm (that turned out to be an air rifle) around haphazardly.
I don't view an air rifle as a non threat. I know there are probably some older guys here who had BB gun and air rifle (1 pump rule) wars in their adolesence. I am proud to say I had more sense and firearms safety mindedness than that.
Over the past 2+ decades, I've received extensive training on takedowns, cuffing, felony stops, multiple suspects, etc... and some of that training has been contradictory. Despite the fact that everyone on the same department recieves the same training, not every officer is able to implement that training in the same way in the very real world of patrol. Personally, I've managed to handle both armed and unarmed felons with only a few use of force investigations and without any loss of life so far. I've been on a lot of scenes where that wasn't the case.
I'll agree that there are a number of officers that really just aren't suited to the job whether it is due to maturity, temperament, confidence, knowledge or mental state.
Much like when a plane crash happens and it is not just a single cause but a series of events that lead to an end result, there were several factors that resulted in the death of this young man. None of which can be pinned on just one person. He was allegedly mishandling a weapon (bad idea) and was intoxicated at the time which was perhaps the reason for the bad idea. The officer giving the commands seemed more than a bit over the top and bordering on lacking control. The tactics employed were questionable given the situation though they cannot be totally condemned either.
Ultimately, I think Murder or 2nd Degree Murder was the wrong charge. Manslaughter or Negligent Homicide probably would have been a certain conviction.
The takeaway of this is that this video will be used extensively over the next several years as a training video and will be the subject of much debate regarding tactics and giving of verbal commands. Hopefully, there will be some lessons learned and improvement in training and tactics made.
Dirk Williams
12-09-17, 10:09
Retired cop 25 years on the streets.
Straight up murder.
That scene was " just another day" routine contact. Pure goat****. Poor training and a major attitude problem. This is a travesty of justice. This was another Lavoy Finicum event. Until We The People demand accountability,from our police, it isn't going to happen.
Back to my cave.
Dirk Williams
Averageman
12-09-17, 10:23
Many have commented on how the instructions given to the young man were impossible to follow. Yet the young lady was able to follow them almost flawlessly. I'm not sure what to make of that. Maybe he was more intoxicated, less coordinated or maybe just not as bright. Allegedly, he was the one waving a firearm (that turned out to be an air rifle) around haphazardly.
I don't view an air rifle as a non threat. I know there are probably some older guys here who had BB gun and air rifle (1 pump rule) wars in their adolesence. I am proud to say I had more sense and firearms safety mindedness than that.
Over the past 2+ decades, I've received extensive training on takedowns, cuffing, felony stops, multiple suspects, etc... and some of that training has been contradictory. Despite the fact that everyone on the same department recieves the same training, not every officer is able to implement that training in the same way in the very real world of patrol. Personally, I've managed to handle both armed and unarmed felons with only a few use of force investigations and without any loss of life so far. I've been on a lot of scenes where that wasn't the case.
You don't think she was treated differently while this was going on?
This was a difficult situation made worse by the "Good Guy" with the gun, the badge and a lack of control and/or training.
Everything I need to know about that guy is written on the dust cover.
sandsunsurf
12-09-17, 10:48
This is difficult. Several people have hit important points: poor tactics, poor control, cascade of errors/bad decisions, bad training, etc. The dumb-ass dust cover.
The fact that the shooter was not the one giving commands helps his case.
Murder? No. There is no malice aforethought.
Gross negligence? Maybe. If the shooter was giving the terrible, unneeded commands, then involuntary manslaughter could be realistic, but as it stands, the cops had a lawful reason to be there and the shooter was reacting to a potential threat. I think that barely covers his ass.
This doesn’t mean I approve of or like what happened. The piss poor commands, combined with the high stress level that the SGT was bringing to the situation clearly brought up the stress level for the the deceased and the shooter, who over reacted to a possible threat. In the big picture, the combined actions of the officers were almost certainly the proximate cause of the shooting. So a big fat civil suit or settlement? Yes. It was a needless killing. I can’t even really say it’s justified. I feel like I can say it’s not unjustified. I don’t like that, either, but that’s also my guess as why a jury came back “not guilty.”
In 21 years of LE, I never once ordered somebody to crawl to me. We don’t and didn’t train to act like those officers did. If they got proned out in a bad spot (or proned themselves out when they saw police and guns), make it work. Wait for more officers, set up Long cover and make a contact team. Otherwise “keep your hands up and walk backwards toward the sound of my voice” worked well. Keep the commands simple. This incident will likely change some tactics used in agencies in the west that are forward thinking enough to review the shooting and see what can be improved.
leibermuster
12-09-17, 10:58
A sociopath got a badge and murdered some kid. Justice still needs to prevail.
That about sums it up. You can see in the trial the cop looks like Alijah Woods character in the “Sin City “ movie. Lol
His reasoning is BS. He hides behind his Mesa training. The cop is a murderer pure and simple. The cop sounds retarded with commands almost like he has Down syndrome.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Police say the Nitzke shot Pigeon with a bean bag, to no effect, before Sweeney fatally shot him.
Pavlov's dogs.
LMT Shooter
12-09-17, 11:30
Many have posted that manslaughter would have been an appropriate charge. The link in post #72 states that the jury also found the cop not guilty of "reckless manslaughter" so I fail to see how that charge would have been a solution.
The video shows what looks like a highly fudged up situation, but I'm surprised at how many have called it murder. I'm not saying it wasn't, and I'm sorry for all who were involved.
Putting your hands in your pocket, reaching for something, or not complying with a police officer is not a threat. It’s not a threat until there is a weapon involved. It’s simply those things that an officer decided he didn’t want someone to do. Just because you say not to do it does not mean that you get to kill someone if they do. It’s not positive identification and it is not an excuse to shoot someone.
You don't think she was treated differently while this was going on?
This was a difficult situation made worse by the "Good Guy" with the gun, the badge and a lack of control and/or training.
Everything I need to know about that guy is written on the dust cover.
I just reviewed the video twice and they were given the same commands almost verbatim. If anything, the commands given to the male were slightly more specific and not more complicated or open to misinterpretation. He just didn't seem to be able to follow them from the beginning, ie. Couldn't keep legs crossed when he pushed up, couldn't keep hands up when told, put hands behind back for no discernible reason without being told to, couldn't move forward on knees as the female was able to without any apparent difficulty. Like I said before, I don't know the whys and can only speculate. It's just my observation that the female was able to comply with the same commands given without any apparent difficulty or deviation.
Many have posted that manslaughter would have been an appropriate charge. The link in post #72 states that the jury also found the cop not guilty of "reckless manslaughter" so I fail to see how that charge would have been a solution.
The video shows what looks like a highly fudged up situation, but I'm surprised at how many have called it murder. I'm not saying it wasn't, and I'm sorry for all who were involved.
I didn't follow and read that link and was unaware that he was also found not guilty of the lesser charge. I'm surprised. Perhaps this is more a case of prosecutorial ineptitude.
Putting your hands in your pocket, reaching for something, or not complying with a police officer is not a threat. It’s not a threat until there is a weapon involved. It’s simply those things that an officer decided he didn’t want someone to do. Just because you say not to do it does not mean that you get to kill someone if they do. It’s not positive identification and it is not an excuse to shoot someone.
In and of themselves, those actions are not threats. They are however indicators and many officers I have known have been injured and killed because they failed to pay attention to or notice them. That is the reason officers decide they don't want someone doing those things and are justified in saying so.
It is uncommon that an officer shoots someone for a singular act. It is overwhelmingly due to a series of actions/failures to respond to lawful commands and display of a dismissive or aggressive attitude.
This shit is unacceptable on a civilian weapon, let alone a patrol rifle.
https://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/yourefd_1459294715042_35083524_ver1.0_640_480.jpg
The above speaks volumes about the murderer's mindset, and lack of discernment as a LEO.
I saw that too this morning and it just adds to many highly disturbing aspects of the incident.
Everyone is welcome to their own opinion, but I can not possibly fathom how any thinking individual can justify what happened in that video and at a total loss as to how at least manslaughter didn't stick.
That about sums it up. You can see in the trial the cop looks like Alijah Woods character in the “Sin City “ movie. Lol
His reasoning is BS. He hides behind his Mesa training. The cop is a murderer pure and simple. The cop sounds retarded with commands almost like he has Down syndrome.
One of the problems here is, the use of the word from a general moral/ethical common use POV and how the law defines it. His actions did not reach murder as the law defines it, hence why he was aquitted. See also sandsunsurf comment above also RE "There is no malice aforethought."
Many, yours included, scratch our heads over what are obviously an over shoot in the charges (Murder 2 here), leading to what will be an acquittal. Others have suggested that's intentional by the prosecutor to assure they don't do jail time. Be that as it may, it's not murder as the law defines (all that actually matters if one is intent on seeing that LEO actually do any jail time) and pushing for murder charges, will see him walk, which he did. Personally, I think a manslaughter charge would have been far more appropriate, and far more likely to get a conviction, but that the guy giving the FUBAR instructions and the guy who did the shooting two different people, it suggests a more systemic PD wide fail to me, that includes, but not limited to, failure of proper training and oversight. I wish the guy giving those commands could be help partially culpable for the outcome. Perhaps internally he will be, but so far, not a single LEO who has seen that feels the orders give and the way they were given, was anything but fail on top of fail.
HackerF15E
12-09-17, 12:19
I appreciate all of you LEOs' commentary on this, it is an enlightening read.
As an outsider, I'm enraged by all the idiocy I perceived being displayed in that video. In my opinion, it is certainly some manner of unjustified homicide and both the command-giver and the shooter displayed what looks to me as an incredible lack of professionalism in the type of situation that most demands it.
I have been in combat, been shot at, and had very close calls, so I'm aware of how difficult it is to keep a clear head when under the stress of losing life or limb. That being said, in the combat Air Force, being under stress is never an excuse for bad decisionmaking. When the iron starts flying is the time when you need to be the coolest, make the most calculated decisions, and stick as close to the ROE as you are capable of. In my profession, those who aren't capable of that tend to be placed somewhere that they can't do any harm (re-assigned, etc).
Thus, while I understand these officers were under stress, I agree with those who've commented in this thread that it is their *job* to be prepared to make decisions under stress.
A shameful situation.
LMT Shooter
12-09-17, 12:24
That may be true. It may also be true that the jury, having a lot more presented to them than just one video, did the right thing. I will never know, nor do I believe it to be likely that anyone who wasn't there will either.
I'm not a big believer in the idea that one video tells enough to make a judgement every time. I think it's a hell of a thing that 8 jurors found the cop not guilty, with all of whatever evidence was presented to them, of the manslaughter charge so often referred to in this thread as well as the murder charge. Do I think that the cop could have made other choices that kept everybody alive? Yes. But we live in a country where doctors make choices that result in a LOT more unnecessary deaths than LEO`s are responsible for, and they don't get charged with murder. How many car accidents happen every year where the sober driver makes a mistake that ends a life, but no criminal charges are filed?
I don't get why cops, or civilian gun owners, who (may have) made mistakes are so quick to be considered criminal for it almost every time. Many who have posted here are LE, and know what they are talking about. But we are all imperfect and we all make mistakes.
I have a lot of mixed feelings about this topic, and this post feels terribly inadequate as far as conveying them well.
I was responding to lobo, the quote got left out, sorry for the confusion.
Putting your hands in your pocket, reaching for something, or not complying with a police officer is not a threat. It’s not a threat until there is a weapon involved. It’s simply those things that an officer decided he didn’t want someone to do. Just because you say not to do it does not mean that you get to kill someone if they do. It’s not positive identification and it is not an excuse to shoot someone.
If doing so counter to commands, you're damn right it's a threat and those who wait to find out have paid wit their lives many times. No LEO will walk up and shoot anyone for having their hands in their pocket, but if/when instructed to not put their hands in their pocket or other spots (behind the back, etc) and they don't comply by then putting their hands in their pocket, things will go in a bad direction for you real fast. It's not rocket science. Keep your hands where they can be viewed, be they on the steering wheel, talking etc, follow basic commands, everyone goes home with same number of holes, etc they started with.
Well trained officers following well designed SOP, who have quality oversight, get it done with minimal drama unless you force it to be otherwise. Some times, the stars align and a perfect storm of events takes place that is not the fault of either party per se that ends in disaster. That happens very rarely, but it's also one of various reasons to intentionally limit interactions with LE in a manner that puts you and them in a potentially dangerous situation to the best of our ability.
I also realize too many are not trained up for the job, and do not meet the recs in bold, and that scared the chit out of me having also worked with and around GTG seasoned LE.
RetroRevolver77
12-09-17, 12:32
In and of themselves, those actions are not threats. They are however indicators and many officers I have known have been injured and killed because they failed to pay attention to or notice them. That is the reason officers decide they don't want someone doing those things and are justified in saying so.
It is uncommon that an officer shoots someone for a singular act. It is overwhelmingly due to a series of actions/failures to respond to lawful commands and display of a dismissive or aggressive attitude.
Which doesn't apply here because clearly the kid did everything asked of him over the course of a ridiculous amount of increasingly difficult commands. What it honestly looked more like to me was that they wanted that kid to screw up so they could kill him. That is why they kept adding more and more commands just hoping for that opening for him to make one little mistake. Lot of sociopaths are attracted to police work mostly for the authoritarian aspects, that's been proven through many studies. So it wouldn't honestly surprise me if at least one of those officers was in fact a sociopath if not both. Many times sociopaths are attracted to each other in aspects of crime or business. As being able to operate without a conscience means only trusting others who are equally without conscience- as we saw in that video.
7n6
HackerF15E
12-09-17, 12:33
I don't get why cops, or civilian gun owners, who (may have) made mistakes are so quick to be considered criminal for it almost every time. Many who have posted here are LE, and know what they are talking about. But we are all imperfect and we all make mistakes.
All mistakes aren't objectively equal.
Yes, we all make mistakes. In a philosophical framework that places human life at the top of the values heirarchy (of which most philosophies and religions do), mistakes that cause harm to others are treated less leniently than those that don't. Mistakes that are fatal to other humans are treated even less leniently.
Yes, there are people who suffer life-long consequences resulting from making mistakes. I don't have a moral or ethical problem with that.
LMT Shooter
12-09-17, 12:41
All mistakes aren't objectively equal.
Yes, we all make mistakes. In a philosophical framework that places human life at the top of the values heirarchy (of which most philosophies and religions do), mistakes that cause harm to others are treated less leniently than those that don't. Mistakes that are fatal to other humans are treated even less leniently.
Yes, there are people who suffer life-long consequences resulting from making mistakes. I don't have a moral or ethical problem with that.
I am applying what I posted to deaths, not all mistakes. I guess it seems to me that when gun is involved in a death, the likelihood that most will assume criminal behavior is much higher than deaths with no firearm involved.
But we are all imperfect and we all make mistakes.
You mean like being upset and confused when several firearms are pointed at you while trying to obey contradicting and absurd commands?
Tell that to the dead guys family. I'm sure it will help.
I saw that too this morning and it just adds to many highly disturbing aspects of the incident.
Everyone is welcome to their own opinion, but I can not possibly fathom how any thinking individual can justify what happened in that video and at a total loss as to how at least manslaughter didn't stick.
I don't get it either. I can appreciate people playing devil's advocate but to step back and look at the big picture.... I just don't get the 'good shoot' / 'not guilty'. It's like listening to people fawn over Hillary. I also don't especially care for the "that's how he was trained" defense. I wonder how often that would be accepted in civy court. Never. "as he was trained" is becoming a license to kill.
The irony of that rifle... I can't believe a PD would allow that in their force. The Spike double peckers logo and You're Fd.
But hey, they performed to the level of their training so it's all good to go.
That video looks like a poor excuse for a video game scene and the reality is though it was a young mans last living nightmare.
I hope they pay her the entire $35M
Many have commented on how the instructions given to the young man were impossible to follow. Yet the young lady was able to follow them almost flawlessly.
She was not given the same commands (OK, the first few were the same but then it diverged), and she did not execute the commands given flawlessly. But she did enough to live. She was not .28 BAC either, and she appeared to be more physically fit. The kid definitely made more mistakes, but he was also getting more confusing and threatening commands. It was a spiral of fail.
Its a catch 22, but I feel that not all police officers should respond to every single call that comes through. Case in point: This police officers responds to a suspected armed man(who wasn't) and killed him in the hallway of a hotel while the suspect was on his knees. The police officer should have a few years of experience and have worked under a senior officer before they ever let him respond to that kind of call. The PD should have kept that officer in traffic duty or working the mall or something. A lot of police officers die every year because they responded to a call that they had no experience in dealing with. If there was a call coming in about an domestic violence dispute that turned deadly in the projects, I wouldn't send the rookie white cop with an AR down there.
I understand that its a stressful environment but shit, when the cop is just as scared and as incoherent as the suspect, we have a problem. Departments need to continually re-evaluate there officers monthly. And these hot headed alpha types need to go.
While I do not support Officer "You're****ed" actions, SGT Friendly sure gave him the short end of the stick.
SGT Friendly took a relatively simple contact and FUBAR'ed it beyond belief, leaving Officer "You're****ed" to be hung out to dry. I would think a more experience cop would have recognized that SGT Friendly was FUBAR'ing the situation and not acted the same as Officer "You're****ed".
So Officer "You're****ed" is fired, charged, and alone and on his own. He now lives knowing he killed a drunk slob, not an actual threat. He probably has 6 figure legal bills, he has no job, and his career in LE is probably over. If he has a marriage, it is probably over. Most friends probably seem just like this forum does a killer at worst and baffoon who should not have a badge at best. Alcoholism or perhaps suicide are now real dangers to his health.
Meanwhile SGT Friendly takes retirement, flees to Philippines where he will avoid civil suit, and lives happily ever after.
While I do not support Officer "You're****ed" actions, SGT Friendly sure gave him the short end of the stick.
SGT Friendly took a relatively simple contact and FUBAR'ed it beyond belief, leaving Officer "You're****ed" to be hung out to dry. I would think a more experience cop would have recognized that SGT Friendly was FUBAR'ing the situation and not acted the same as Officer "You're****ed".
So Officer "You're****ed" is fired, charged, and alone and on his own. He now lives knowing he killed a drunk slob, not an actual threat. He probably has 6 figure legal bills, he has no job, and his career in LE is probably over. If he has a marriage, it is probably over. Most friends probably seem just like this forum does a killer at worst and baffoon who should not have a badge at best. Alcoholism or perhaps suicide are now real dangers to his health.
Meanwhile SGT Friendly takes retirement, flees to Philippines where he will avoid civil suit, and lives happily ever after.
I don't have the same level of...understanding we'll say that you have for the shooter, but I completely agree however about that POS bigmouth SGT getting off easy. A total disgrace and he is just as guilty for what happened and also for being everything you hope someone with a badge would not be.
While I do not support Officer "You're****ed" actions, SGT Friendly sure gave him the short end of the stick.
I thought Corycop did a good job of separating the shooter from SGT Friendly and it was the first I learned they were not one and the same person.
I don't have the same level of...understanding we'll say that you have for the shooter, but I completely agree however about that POS bigmouth SGT getting off easy. A total disgrace and he is just as guilty for what happened and also for being everything you hope someone with a badge would not be.
Now Now, I was clear - "I do not support Officer "You're****ed" actions"
Now Now, I was clear - "I do not support Officer "You're****ed" actions"
Reading again you are correct of course. Just that no one else pulled the trigger, so only he was weak and eager enough to ruin everyone's day in the end.
Reading again you are correct of course. Just that no one else pulled the trigger, so only he was weak and eager enough to ruin everyone's day in the end.
Yep. I am saying there is more than one bad actor here, and he managed to complete avoid any responsibility, dumping it all on one person, and then cowardly fleeing the country.
ramairthree
12-09-17, 14:48
Ram you have extremely poor judgement and we are all thankful you are not a police officer.
Safetyhit,
I have extremely good judgement and proven performance under fire.
But in a very different environment.
I have no training or desire to be LE.
Let’s seperate things out here.
The guy covering and then pulling the trigger obviously thought he was reaching for a gun. On every occasion I have seen a haji do that, there was a pistol, grenade, or suicide belt or they were going for. Ethically, I can’t convict the man of murder. He was wrong in this case.
The guy doing the yelling did not have it together. He really complicated and messed up the situation. He put the shooter in a bad spot. He should be fired. I am not sure what criminal charge applies.
But the shooter did not shoot on multiple occasions when the kid was not following commands. He only shot when he went one handed for the small the back. I would not vote for murder.
This shit is unacceptable on a civilian weapon, let alone a patrol rifle.
https://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/yourefd_1459294715042_35083524_ver1.0_640_480.jpg
The above speaks volumes about the murderer's mindset, and lack of discernment as a LEO.
I wonder how many, if any, of his fellow officers told him that junk is unacceptable. I know on training days if someone did or had something idiotic we would jump all over it. But then again something like that would have never made past our armorer.
Just chiming in to say LE and Military are two very radically different paradigms no matter how much people want to conflate the two.
What works in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc can fail miserably in America.
These people aren't insurgents. They are your neighbors whether you like them or not.
You don't think I never been scared?
Or uncomfortable?
Or shot at?
Or stabbed?
I have.
But every case is different and you gotta approach it as a new thing.
I'm sure there are plenty of military her who have seen an insurgent do a last ditch grab for a grenade.
I have yet to see anyone or hear tell of anyone in Hometown, USA doing that.
If people are going to make a play it will be within the first 30 seconds of contact.
He was drunk, young, scared shitless, and was doing his best to follow the confusing hokey pokey commands.
Entirely unacceptable.
Chief, SGT, Slicksleeve all should be de-certified and some people should be looking at prison terms.
No excuses.
I wonder how many, if any, of his fellow officers told him that junk is unacceptable. I know on training days if someone did or had something idiotic we would jump all over it. But then again something like that would have never made past our armorer.
I have a sneaking suspicion he put that on after his rifle was approved.
It looks cute and hooah until it gets real.
I hope they get charged Federally
Safetyhit,
I have extremely good judgement and proven performance under fire.
But in a very different environment.
I have no training or desire to be LE.
Let’s seperate things out here.
The guy covering and then pulling the trigger obviously thought he was reaching for a gun. On every occasion I have seen a haji do that, there was a pistol, grenade, or suicide belt or they were going for. Ethically, I can’t convict the man of murder. He was wrong in this case.
The guy doing the yelling did not have it together. He really complicated and messed up the situation. He put the shooter in a bad spot. He should be fired. I am not sure what criminal charge applies.
But the shooter did not shoot on multiple occasions when the kid was not following commands. He only shot when he went one handed for the small the back. I would not vote for murder.
I’d hate to have been where you were. I have all sorts of badges and patches and medals for spending what most people would consider an extreme amount of time with my boots on the ground around Mahmudiyah, Yusifiyah, and Lutifiyah Iraq- also known as the Triangle of Death. I have spent an abnormal amount of time self identifying as some sort of botanical entity watching those people do all sorts of nonsense, like digging in the side of the road, wielding a rifle, driving a heavily laden vehicle, racing past a polling station. It has been my experience that the majority of those times there was no threat, and I am infinitely grateful Colt and KAC don’t put better triggers in their products. There were probably over a dozen people I could have let take the room temperature challenge and didn’t, because I understand what positive identification means and the difference between a threat and the possibility of a threat.
Safetyhit,
I have extremely good judgement and proven performance under fire.
But in a very different environment.
I have no training or desire to be LE.
Let’s seperate things out here.
The guy covering and then pulling the trigger obviously thought he was reaching for a gun. On every occasion I have seen a haji do that, there was a pistol, grenade, or suicide belt or they were going for. Ethically, I can’t convict the man of murder. He was wrong in this case.
The guy doing the yelling did not have it together. He really complicated and messed up the situation. He put the shooter in a bad spot. He should be fired. I am not sure what criminal charge applies.
But the shooter did not shoot on multiple occasions when the kid was not following commands. He only shot when he went one handed for the small the back. I would not vote for murder.
I should have worded my reply differently and apologize. All I can say is the one time I watched that will be my last, and it stung to witness such a needless travesty. First degree murder no, but it lingers in the realm of second or third if not manslaughter at the very least.
Anyhow I have no clue how you or the officer found anything that victim did as threatening, but as I said earlier to another we are all welcome to our opinion.
I have a sneaking suspicion he put that on after his rifle was approved.
It looks cute and hooah until it gets real.
I hope they get charged Federally
If I saw a fellow LEO had "You're****ed" engraved on a service weapon they carried on duty, I would put my foot in his ass.
A 1983 action is always a possibility.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-09-17, 17:50
It's almost like group think. He told him that if he put his hand behind him again that he'd shoot him, so when he did the guy not giving orders, but on the gun shoots him.
So many break points, but when he said 'crawl' towards me, the guy goes on all fours- which I would think is pretty standard. His pants start to come down and he reflexively pulls them up. If he had been on his knees with is hands way up they would have had a lot more time to stop his hand motion.
"Walk on your knees" might have saved that kid's life.
All I know is that if I am ever in that situation and the cop asks if you are drunk, say "YES", I am so drunk I have a hard time understanding you.
Cross your right over your left. Unless you are giving that as a quick sobriety check, which the kid failed BTW, that is needlessly complex.
If I’m ever in that situation, God forbid, I am going prone, palms up and out to my side and refusing to move.
Speaking of that situation, was the woman who came around the corner an innocent bystander? She had purse and seemed oblivious to the drunk.
No, I think she had been in the room with him and another guy. She is the one that told them to chillax with the rifle in the window or something bad was going to happen.
No, I think she had been in the room with him and another guy. She is the one that told them to chillax with the rifle in the window or something bad was going to happen.
Yes I know there was another mna + woman, but was she the woman? She did not seem to know him, and with purse appeared she was entering/leaving hotel.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-09-17, 18:35
Speaking of that situation, was the woman who came around the corner an innocent bystander? She had purse and seemed oblivious to the drunk.
Did they call the room and tell them to come downstairs or something? They seemed to walk out of that room pretty spryly, like they didn't know that they were going to get arrested.
With all the SWATing that goes on, I'm surprised that this isn't more of an issue- while in this case it sounds like someone who was armaphobic made the call.
Did I hear correctly that his job was to go around to Walmarts and shoot the birds that get into the stores? Either the coolest or creepiest job I can think of. Like an old west gun slinger or pre-mass murderer training.
OK my bad, they both came out of same hallway, so were probably together.
If I’m ever in that situation, God forbid, I am going prone, palms up and out to my side and refusing to move.this is what I was thinking.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
I lived in Mesa for 35 years, they smoke people all the time, just like the Albuquerque P.D.
There were 4 police officers present !
Were it a murder charge I would vote to convict, and the 3 other officers should be charged
also.
They do it to civilians, you drive get a way car , robber kills teller, both charged with murder.
I did not read through the entire thread to know if others would do the same but once we had a subject down and on their face we would move up cuff and move them out of the hallway while the other officer was covering down. Way way way too many commands for somebody to follow in an emotionally-charged situation in my opinion.
You know what else is interesting... Just before the 3min mark.
"Rich" didn't seem to know any basic procedures.
"Stop" ok, grab and pull. Rich goes to do his thing... "No, Pull, Rich" "Pull!!" Both guys were saying that.
"Ok, let me know when you are clear"
"Clear" -- I assume that's Rich
"No, you're not clear, you haven't frisked her"
disorganized, unnecessary, confusing, but at the end of the day that's ok because the scared crying drunk guy that had tried everything he knew how to do to surrender made a normal human mistake. So it's his fault he's dead.
I hope Karma is especially attentive to that guy that skipped to the islands.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ5KZ0gh2hg <<<< That is the trigger man. "The mouth" belongs in a prison.
That hotel killing was a training exercise that went wrong. When the wife and children win the wrongful death suit, the public will pay again.
Yes I know there was another mna + woman, but was she the woman? She did not seem to know him, and with purse appeared she was entering/leaving hotel.
To my understanding after reading contradictory accounts, yes. One in the same.
Now when you read this though,, it will say the shooter was giving orders as well. It will say the wife has a $75Mil lawsuit. I have read contradictions to both of those.BUT... I believe the girl is one from his room.
I'll bet the 'other guy' is glad he went somewhere else.
Two people in a hot tube saw a silhouette of someone aiming across the highway. If you see something say something.
Shaver was with a woman named Monique Portillo at the time. After ordering both to exit the room, Brailsford told Portillo to approach the police so that she could be handcuffed. Shaver, on the other hand, was told to get on the floor.
According to a written description recorded by the police of the events, Shaver was "compliant and offered no resistance." Even though he was drunk, as confirmed by Portillo later, Shaver answered all the questions asked by the police coherently, saying, "Yes, sir" and "No, sir."
At some point during the interrogation, Shaver attempted to move from his position on the ground, which is when the law enforcement officer accompanying Brailsford, Sgt. Charles Langley said, "If you do that again, we are shooting you." At this, a sobbing Shaver replied, "Please don't shoot me."
As Shaver struggled to keep his legs crossed and his hands above his head in that kneeling position, one of the officers yells, "If you think you’re going to fall you better fall on your face. Your hands go to the small of your back, we are going to shoot you,"
The officers then told Shaver to slowly crawl towards them. As he was doing so, Shaver reached toward his waistband. Suspecting that Shaver was armed, Brailsford cried "Don’t!" before shooting him five times. Shaver was pronounced dead at the scene.
After an investigation, it was discovered that Shaver was probably reaching to pull up his pants since no weapons were found on his body. Shaver’s gesture that led to his death was consistent with both "attempting to pull his shorts up as they were falling off" and "someone drawing a pistol from their waist band," according to police records.
As it turns out, the gun that the clerk spotted Shaver pointing at people in his room was a pellet pistol that the victim was using to kill pests in the room, prior to his shooting. Portillo corroborated this fact, stating that earlier that night Shaver was showing a male colleague his pellet gun.
This is locl to me and happened in a neighboring agency. It also happened right before my week of annual training. So on the day of use of force review and de-escalation we went over this. Some of the guys in the class were privy to the investigation and told us what had happened. The video is pretty much exactly what I was told. Im really surprised that he was found not guilty on the manslaughter charge. I thought murder 2 was a reach from the beginning.
From what I was told the other officers in the hallway all stated that the victim was reaching to pull up his pants which had been falling off at the time of the shooting. That was probably key to why the shooting officer was charged.
I think it was a shit show of a scene and the shooter overreacted. Unfortunately there is no way to know how a guy is going to react in those types of situations.
What I dont get is why he overreacted. He had been an officer for 5 years I believe at the time of the shooting. Mesa Az is a decent sized town of over 400k residents and part of Phoenix metro area. So it's not like this would be his first rodeo in a potentially violent scene. There's no way the victim is the first "non compliant" person he has dealt with.
Also, reports Ive heard say the woman was a hooker. Not that it means anything but that's why she was there and who she was.
While I do not support Officer "You're****ed" actions, SGT Friendly sure gave him the short end of the stick.
SGT Friendly took a relatively simple contact and FUBAR'ed it beyond belief, leaving Officer "You're****ed" to be hung out to dry. I would think a more experience cop would have recognized that SGT Friendly was FUBAR'ing the situation and not acted the same as Officer "You're****ed".
So Officer "You're****ed" is fired, charged, and alone and on his own. He now lives knowing he killed a drunk slob, not an actual threat. He probably has 6 figure legal bills, he has no job, and his career in LE is probably over. If he has a marriage, it is probably over. Most friends probably seem just like this forum does a killer at worst and baffoon who should not have a badge at best. Alcoholism or perhaps suicide are now real dangers to his health.
Meanwhile SGT Friendly takes retirement, flees to Philippines where he will avoid civil suit, and lives happily ever after.
Yes, I read that on another site. Hmmm....was that ex-pat retirement planned or was it an afterthought to this fiasco?
Both he and Clark Kent the shooter should have been charged and convicted of manslaughter.
leibermuster
12-09-17, 23:08
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171210/4d60d7dab8bdb48de72ca73a47877eb5.jpg
https://youtu.be/MBf0RkFqINw
This guy looks like the shooter. The resemblance. Lol.
Such a retarded Cluster****. Poor guy. Poor family.
RIP.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Picture I saw he had all kimds of tattoos.
That alone speaks to his "professionalism".
If you must doodle on your skin, get used to long sleeves.
Per Mr. Philippine expat, cancel his pension.
An American with no income loses friends fast.
And I figure he's too bitchmade to go Vic Mackey over there.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-10-17, 01:53
That hotel killing was a training exercise that went wrong. When the wife and children win the wrongful death suit, the public will pay again.
I'm picturing the trial lawyer for the family running that tape over and over, louder and louder. Breaking each point down as to why it was done, where they were trained to do that and finishing with the dust cover. I'm not a lawyer, but I've done enough persuasive presentations to nail that one.
RobertTheTexan
12-10-17, 03:06
David, you touched on something long swept under the rug.
Officers get qualed but not really trained.
Huge difference.
Most dept standards are a sick joke and people still struggle. Shooting once a year is as much as some ever do. Or worse, they go off and shoot "their way" and develop sloppy habits.
I was lucky, and I do emphasize lucky, that I got selected for more advanced training. I had to face hard truths about my own proficiency and overcome them.
Your average officer just is not where they could be. Nobody teaches force on force, de-escalation, crisis intervention, high risk arrest, etc.
The high end guys will never encounter the everyday hazards of patrol. Of being a First Responder.
The guy who is first in needs to be competent and squared away. There are a lot of wrong answers.
If officers got better training tge lawsuits would go down.
You're not a Marine or an Army Ranger, not everybody is Dillinger. It's a thinking man's game. If all you can do is bark and draw a weapon then you aren't accomplishing much.
This may be some people's only interaction with the police and they will judge all others accordingly.
Yes, policework is heartbreaking. Soul-crushing. Frustrating. Depressing. Terrifying. Disgusting.
And any policeman who says he hasnt had to go off somewhere and weep into his hands is either so rookie as to be irrelevant or a liar.
But the public doesn't have to see that.
Most people are just caught in a bad situation.
My personal mantra is "People come first".
And I have more tools than a hammer because not everything is a nail.
If folks wanna be like Tackleberry who zapped that boy
www.goarmy.com
www.marines.com
and if you don't qualify
http://en.legion-recrute.com
I'm sure they'd just be thrilled to have an easily spun up jackass...
I wasn’t fully aware of this until I became really close friends with an officer who is the firearms instructor for the PD. He has described to me officers only pick Ip their weapon a (not incident related) to qualify. He describes officers who didn’t even own a firearms who are now carry them daily. Not saying firearm ownership is a prequisite, just a point that the weapon is almost a foreign tool in their hands. He’s been working with me, training with me as he used to shoot IPDA. During our training sessions that last for hours, I have never even once seen an LEO at their range training on a weekend (or on Fridays). We would be out at the range and shoot house for hours and now one else would show. He’s set up some really practical and fun training courses for them off-duty, but rarely does anyone shows up. It was hard for me to understand at first, but then I thought back to my time in the military. Yes I shot and I had my own weapons, but they weren’t AR’s. I just carried that forward to the law enforcement side. Although in this day and age, I fail to understand how an LEO does not see the absolute need train with their weapon, especially when there is plenty of subject material to indicate they are undertrained as a whole and the problems that can occur due to lack of training or insufficient training. I wish that would change.
ramairthree
12-10-17, 04:53
I don’t think there is any disagreement about the f-tard giving the commands.
Or about differing ROE in different environments.
Or even that the shooter with sleeves and douchey crap on his gun might be a tool.
If there HAD been a Thomas Magnum carry pistol back there what would your opinion be?
If it was a pistol, but ended up being his airsoft pellet gun thing?
If he pulled an ignitor, and killed himself, the LEOs, the chick, and maybe a few in close by rooms?
Both hands going behind the back the first time my instant impression was he had played the flexicuff game before, and things would have turned out a lot better if some one had rolled him up then. But they didn’t.
Unpopular as it seems to be,
That twist and right hand back my instant impression was he was making a go for it.
I know it is not popular,
But if your neighbor called and said some dude was running around on his property waving a pistol, and then this guy walks over from your neighbors property and reaches for the small of his back,
Is it possible you would shoot?
If you did,
And it was determined after the fact he had already left the gun in the bushes,
And you just shot an an unarmed man, that you thought was armed and reaching for a pistol,
Would you want me to sit on a jury and vote to convict you of murder?
If you can state with a resounding 100% absolutely no way would you have shot, I guess I can’t take any fault with your criticisms.
PatrioticDisorder
12-10-17, 08:02
Looked like manslaughter to me, commands seemed very unreasonable. the man who was shot was obviously scared shitless prior to the shooting, yes in a bubble the dead guy's right hand appeared to possibly be reaching for a pistol but with 2 LEOs on scene why was he not cuffed? Training issue? IDK, I am not an LEO but the shooting looked botched. It doesn't look like 2nd degree murder, but it does look like manslaughter in my eyes. That was a very painful video to watch.
It’s interesting to see people’s interpretation. Everyone says guy was scared shitless (victim), my interpretation was that he was acting and saying one thing, but his body language did not look scared to me. He looked like someone who didn’t want to be bothered with the whole thing. They way he was flopping his arms around the whole time would have put me on edge.
Also, didn’t the officer ask if they were intoxicated and they both said “no”? That changes the perspective I guess.
Agree though, it looked like a shit show on the cops side of things. I’ve never seen a suspect instructed to crawl towards the cops. Hands up and walk backwards I’ve seen a few times.
I’ve had a cop give me conflicting, impossible instruction and yell at me before, I believe he did it on purpose to trip me up. Not ok when lives are on the line.
Looked like manslaughter to me, commands seemed very unreasonable. the man who was shot was obviously scared shitless prior to the shooting, yes in a bubble the dead guy's right hand appeared to possibly be reaching for a pistol but with 2 LEOs on scene why was he not cuffed? Training issue? IDK, I am not an LEO but the shooting looked botched. It doesn't look like 2nd degree murder, but it does look like manslaughter in my eyes. That was a very painful video to watch.
There was not 2 LEO's there were 6 so called LEO's in that hallway.
You don’t get to murder someone because there MIGHT be a gun.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-10-17, 11:52
What I don't get is why he overreacted. He had been an officer for 5 years I believe at the time of the shooting.
The verbal commands said if you reach for your belt again, you will be shot. He reached, the shooter shot. Maybe that is the downside of splitting the commands from the shooter. The shooter has in his head about hand position and shoots, where if you had the two functions together, you might get a command of HANDS before you shoot. The shooter shot. That was his one tool, and he hammered that screw hard.
It’s interesting to see people’s interpretation. Everyone says guy was scared shitless (victim), my interpretation was that he was acting and saying one thing, but his body language did not look scared to me. He looked like someone who didn’t want to be bothered with the whole thing. They way he was flopping his arms around the whole time would have put me on edge.
He acted like a drunk guy who knows he isn't a threat and all there is in the room was a BB gun. His drunken state didn't allow him to fully appreciate the view from the other side if the Aimpoint.
Q: Did they ever ask him where the gun was?? Not saying that you have to believe him, but saying my BB gun for shooting birds at Walmart is in the room might of gone a long ways to reducing the snap decisions made.
The verbal commands said if you reach for your belt again, you will be shot. He reached, the shooter shot.
The commands were unreasonable for the situation the SGT put him in. The fact he had disobeyed them several times prior (without pulling as gun), was proof he was unable to understand or physically comply. "Get on knees, crossed legs, hands up", "Do you understand? Don't talk listen ... "Do not put your hands down for any reason" "crawl forward" ... WTF that is all contradictory.
No cop yet has said that is how they are trained or would have handled it.
The commands were unreasonable for the situation the SGT put him in. The fact he had disobeyed them several times prior (without pulling as gun), was proof he was unable to understand or physically comply. "Get on knees, crossed legs, hands up", "Do you understand? Don't talk listen ... "Do not put your hands down for any reason" "crawl forward" ... WTF that is all contradictory.
No cop yet has said that is how they are trained or would have handled it.
Basic felony takedown: "Hands up. Slowly walk backwards towards the sound of my voice. Keep walking, keep walking, keep walking, stop!"
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-10-17, 13:49
The commands were unreasonable for the situation the SGT put him in. The fact he had disobeyed them several times prior (without pulling as gun), was proof he was unable to understand or physically comply. "Get on knees, crossed legs, hands up", "Do you understand? Don't talk listen ... "Do not put your hands down for any reason" "crawl forward" ... WTF that is all contradictory.
No cop yet has said that is how they are trained or would have handled it.
I wasn’t justifying it, more commenting on the split of responsibilities. With one person giving commands and the other there just ‘shooting’, that is the only tool the shooter has. That’s why I said he hammered that screw hard. The one giving commands put the shooter in the position of a binary choice, really not even a choice. The kids hands move- bang. It wasn’t even if the shooter thought there was a threat. What he was told to do is that if the kids hands move- shoot. Don’t know if that came up in trial, but it is an interesting variation in the ‘following orders’ range of reasons for bad decisions.
Basic felony takedown: "Hands up. Slowly walk backwards towards the sound of my voice. Keep walking, keep walking, keep walking, stop!"
yep, that is 99% of responses. Other 1% is prone spread eagle don't move.
If you can state with a resounding 100% absolutely no way would you have shot, I guess I can’t take any fault with your criticisms.
I haven't posted anything on the thread condemning the officer - that I recall - but if I had been asked to defend this, I would have passed. I'm not saying he is guilty of murder, or manslaughter, I'm just saying that I would not be willing to say he was justified in firing when he did.
Not knowing the officer, it is hard to say if this was an attitude thing, or a training thing, but it shouldn't have happened.
What I dont get is why he overreacted. He had been an officer for 5 years I believe at the time of the shooting. Mesa Az is a decent sized town of over 400k residents and part of Phoenix metro area. So it's not like this would be his first rodeo in a potentially violent scene. There's no way the victim is the first "non compliant" person he has dealt with.
I have no knowledge of Mesa PD, so this is not an indictment of their training, but size of agency is not necessarily a guarantee of good training.
In many agencies use of force training is a hit and miss. If you have an agency whose range/training staff aren't knowledgeable about use-of-force training and shoot/train from the hip you are likely to get that old 'I'd rather be judged by twelve, then carried by six attitude.'
As an example of that, several years ago I was told by an officer that when dealing with a suicidal subject holding a weapon to their head, their agency policy was that the subject be given a command to drop the weapon and if the subject did not comply lethal force was justified. Now, I can think of lots of situations where such an action could be warranted in the totality of the circumstances so I questioned the guy further. The guy was adamant, 'suicidal man with gun to head + doesn't drop/lower weapon upon command = shoot.
I pursued the issue. It turns out it was the range staff's policy passed on during in-service training. This guy respected the range staff enough that he was willing to believe what they told him.
Obviously the range staff had no working knowledge of Graham vs. Connor. Particularly the finding that 'the test of reasonableness is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application.
Its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case.' Which pretty much rules out a rote response policy such as the officer was advocating.
In addition to agency training, cliques develop in LE just as they do in other professions or businesses. Sometimes the clique forms around a team or unit and a formal or informal leader influences officer attitudes.
I have learned the hard, hard way a lot of officers these days are in Lenovo Thinkpad shells still running VIC-20 software
The verbal commands said if you reach for your belt again, you will be shot. He reached, the shooter shot. Maybe that is the downside of splitting the commands from the shooter. The shooter has in his head about hand position and shoots, where if you had the two functions together, you might get a command of HANDS before you shoot. The shooter shot. That was his one tool, and he hammered that screw hard.
The whole cluster seems to point back to the terrible verbal commands that were given, vs the shooter per se. Shooter pulled the trigger so he was charged, but it seemingly all could have been avoided. I assume the Sgt career in LE is done.
RobertTheTexan
12-10-17, 17:37
I haven't posted anything on the thread condemning the officer - that I recall - but if I had been asked to defend this, I would have passed. I'm not saying he is guilty of murder, or manslaughter, I'm just saying that I would not be willing to say he was justified in firing when he did.
Not knowing the officer, it is hard to say if this was an attitude thing, or a training thing, but it shouldn't have happened.
26,
Cory said the officer that did the shooting was not the one issuing commands. I know some LEO’s have said there isn’t SOP at that level, but is that the norm?
In my simple mind, that just doesn’t make sense. Was the officer who did the shooting the only officer with a weapon on the suspect? It just makes sense that he guy pulling the trigger should be issuing commands because ultimately he or she will be responsible. Maybe having life and death in your hands would have led to a less confusing, contradicting situation.
Also in this case the officer running his mouth is not accountable for anything?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
26,
Cory said the officer that did the shooting was not the one issuing commands. I know some LEO’s have said there isn’t SOP at that level, but is that the norm?
In my simple mind, that just doesn’t make sense. Was the officer who did the shooting the only officer with a weapon on the suspect? It just makes sense that he guy pulling the trigger should be issuing commands because ultimately he or she will be responsible. Maybe having life and death in your hands would have led to a less confusing, contradicting situation.
Also in this case the officer running his mouth is not accountable for anything?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
While there isnt any SOP where I work, if multiple guys are on scene and you are conducting something like this, or a high risk stop, etc.... You divide up the responsibility. The lethal coverage guy is just that, the less lethal guy is just that, and the guy giving commands is running the show. He should be the one coordinating the arrest team, guiding the suspect, giving commands, etc.
When it comes to shooting the ultimate accountability resides with the guy pulling the trigger.
Now that sergeant giving bad commands could be held liable in civil court and/or for policy violations.
I haven't posted anything on the thread condemning the officer - that I recall - but if I had been asked to defend this, I would have passed. I'm not saying he is guilty of murder, or manslaughter, I'm just saying that I would not be willing to say he was justified in firing when he did.
Not knowing the officer, it is hard to say if this was an attitude thing, or a training thing, but it shouldn't have happened.
I have no knowledge of Mesa PD, so this is not an indictment of their training, but size of agency is not necessarily a guarantee of good training.
In many agencies use of force training is a hit and miss. If you have an agency whose range/training staff aren't knowledgeable about use-of-force training and shoot/train from the hip you are likely to get that old 'I'd rather be judged by twelve, then carried by six attitude.'
As an example of that, several years ago I was told by an officer that when dealing with a suicidal subject holding a weapon to their head, their agency policy was that the subject be given a command to drop the weapon and if the subject did not comply lethal force was justified. Now, I can think of lots of situations where such an action could be warranted in the totality of the circumstances so I questioned the guy further. The guy was adamant, 'suicidal man with gun to head + doesn't drop/lower weapon upon command = shoot.
I pursued the issue. It turns out it was the range staff's policy passed on during in-service training. This guy respected the range staff enough that he was willing to believe what they told him.
Obviously the range staff had no working knowledge of Graham vs. Connor. Particularly the finding that 'the test of reasonableness is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application.
Its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case.' Which pretty much rules out a rote response policy such as the officer was advocating.
In addition to agency training, cliques develop in LE just as they do in other professions or businesses. Sometimes the clique forms around a team or unit and a formal or informal leader influences officer attitudes.
I dont think this is an agency training issue at the core of it. Im not well versed in Mesa PD issues but I havent heard really anything bad about them from guys who have trained with them. I attended a single day demo shoot event at their training facility and their guys were pretty squared away from what I recall. I think this is a case of pure overreaction on the shooters part coupled with bad verbal commands from the Sgt. With the size of Mesa and their call volume, if this were a training issue I think A) they would be having more bad shoots and B) this guy would have had a bad shoot before.
I dont think this is an agency training issue at the core of it. Im not well versed in Mesa PD issues but I havent heard really anything bad about them from guys who have trained with them. I attended a single day demo shoot event at their training facility and their guys were pretty squared away from what I recall. I think this is a case of pure overreaction on the shooters part coupled with bad verbal commands from the Sgt. With the size of Mesa and their call volume, if this were a training issue I think A) they would be having more bad shoots and B) this guy would have had a bad shoot before.
C-grunt, I am glad you are chiming in to give us a clearer picture.
I am across the country and dunno squat about how AZ polices (although policing should be relatively universal).
But it shows one mishap can color a whole department.
Im sure there are a bunch of Mesa officers who do good and care but now because of two people they got a black mark.
But I can and will be critical of leadership.
Now that I know it was "Sarge" giving those commands, I'm pissed.
A police Sergeant should be the guy who can make a scene better. Not worse.
I dont think this is an agency training issue at the core of it. Im not well versed in Mesa PD issues but I havent heard really anything bad about them from guys who have trained with them. I attended a single day demo shoot event at their training facility and their guys were pretty squared away from what I recall. I think this is a case of pure overreaction on the shooters part coupled with bad verbal commands from the Sgt. With the size of Mesa and their call volume, if this were a training issue I think A) they would be having more bad shoots and B) this guy would have had a bad shoot before.
Like I said, I have no knowledge of Mesa PD, so this is not an indictment of their training, but size of agency is not necessarily a guarantee of good training.
RobertTheTexan
12-10-17, 21:38
While there isnt any SOP where I work, if multiple guys are on scene and you are conducting something like this, or a high risk stop, etc.... You divide up the responsibility. The lethal coverage guy is just that, the less lethal guy is just that, and the guy giving commands is running the show. He should be the one coordinating the arrest team, guiding the suspect, giving commands, etc.
When it comes to shooting the ultimate accountability resides with the guy pulling the trigger.
Now that sergeant giving bad commands could be held liable in civil court and/or for policy violations.
Thanks for the knowledge dump C. I realize in the end the responsibility does rest on the one use applied lethal force. I was mainly wondering if there were any departmental consequences. I just can’t see how an LT or Chief could view this body cam footage and not take disciplinary action and I don’t mean a “counseling statement.”
I’m not in a place to know the inner workings, but I do understand good leadership. So as a leader I would have this guys ass on a platter.
Maybe something did happen and we aren’t privy because it’s internal..
Thanks again for the intel.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks for the knowledge dump C. I realize in the end the responsibility does rest on the one use applied lethal force. I was mainly wondering if there were any departmental consequences. I just can’t see how an LT or Chief could view this body cam footage and not take disciplinary action and I don’t mean a “counseling statement.”
I’m not in a place to know the inner workings, but I do understand good leadership. So as a leader I would have this guys ass on a platter.
Maybe something did happen and we aren’t privy because it’s internal..
Thanks again for the intel.
What will undoubtedly happen is the city will get tuned up for a million or two and that may make them take a look at the issues you address.
Maybe instead of yelling at people in high tension situations we should teach officers to deescalate :confused:
While there isnt any SOP where I work, if multiple guys are on scene and you are conducting something like this, or a high risk stop, etc.... You divide up the responsibility. The lethal coverage guy is just that, the less lethal guy is just that, and the guy giving commands is running the show. He should be the one coordinating the arrest team, guiding the suspect, giving commands, etc.
When it comes to shooting the ultimate accountability resides with the guy pulling the trigger.
Now that sergeant giving bad commands could be held liable in civil court and/or for policy violations.
I agree with this 100%. If the shooter were charged with simple Manslaughter in our area, the prosecutor would not have to prove recklessness as an element of the offense. The defense would have had a difficult time proving their case and there is a reasonable likelihood the jury would have returned a guilty verdict.
What will undoubtedly happen is the city will get tuned up for a million or two and that may make them take a look at the issues you address.
They will cough up a lot more than that. He had a two young children and a wife.
Also I have not read if the gun was really pointed out a window. Again as in Vegas, I thought windows in hotels were sealed. So that means someone saw a silhouette of a person in what amounts to their home. Upon leaving his home he was confronted by LEO who then they dictated the script.
Can your do this? Put this leg here, perform this action or die!!
Do you have a weapon, a gun? --- oops, forgot that one. But the answer may well have been yes, a pellet gun in my room, I'm an exterminator.
I would be somewhat shocked if it's under $15M that would be $5M for the legal team. $3M each child in trust. $4M for widow to raise the children.
$1M - $2M for that fiasco is a further slap in the face.
the prosecutor would not have to prove recklessness as an element of the offense.
Someone suggested above that overcharging is basically a 'secret handshake' technique. It's a shame to note that so many people see the wrong charges placed. It's beginning to look like a WWCD ( What Would Comey Do ) situation as well.
Has it been confirmed that the shooter was not the one giving commands? I'm not seeing that info anywhere but here.
This one is bad. Giving instructions that can't be reasonably followed and not reading the situation right. Poor choices and poorer instructions by the LEO's got this man killed.
Kid was not a threat and between the six Leo's in the hallway it would have been cake walk to cuff him.
This could have easily been avoided. To much machismo and adrenaline and not enough grey matter being used by the LEO's involved.
Should have gotten manslaughter charge to stick easily based on the video.
Has it been confirmed that the shooter was not the one giving commands? I'm not seeing that info anywhere but here.
Read P3
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-of-appeals/1852789.html
Then read P7. Even though Langly was giving orders he KNEW, after having asked, that the victim was not understanding the orders. He admits it right there.
Detective Sipe testified that D.S.'s action of putting his hands behind his back appeared to be an attempt by D.S. to be handcuffed. Sergeant Langley disagreed with Sipe and testified that it appeared D.S. was not understanding the instructions.
That is --before-- this even went to trial.
So before the trial the guy running the show admits the kid couldn't understand the confusing orders. But not to worry because the Union Man says it's a non-issue, the Trainer says he did what he was trained for, and it really makes no difference that Sarge created a no win situation for the drunk crying kid that was flat out on the floor, arms out-stretched, and begging "Please don't soot me"
Really the more I read the more bizarre it gets. So Sarge KNOWS something is wrong and keeps going. Trigger sees nothing wrong? Come on. Over charged by every professional opinion on this board?
Give me a break. This thing is rotten to the core and they all know it.
Sergeant Langley disagreed with Sipe and testified that it appeared D.S. was not understanding the instructions. --- Yep, not to mention he was slobbering scared.
Langley believed that the motion was an indication that D.S. may have been drawing a weapon. --- BS!! That doesn't work after you have already said you thought he couldn't understand commands.
Someone suggested above that overcharging is basically a 'secret handshake' technique. It's a shame to note that so many people see the wrong charges placed. It's beginning to look like a WWCD ( What Would Comey Do ) situation as well.
I was the one that posted that, and in this case it appears I was incorrect. It seems the jury had the option of finding him guilty of lower charges.
WickedWillis
12-11-17, 12:56
Here ya go. Per the OP, I did all I could to give that LEO the benefit of the doubt. On this one, LEO is screwed. I suspect he heard the bean bag fire, brain registered it as gun fire, and he burned the kid down. Again, they are going for murder 2. Is SOP not usually to announce use of a the less lethal to avoid exactly that? It was dark, so likely didn't know it was a bean bag, or least I suspect that will be his defense:
"Police said Sweeney and Officer Troy Nitzke responded to a report of a suicidal person that night and found Pigeon trying to set fire to himself with a lighter fluid and a lighter in a residential neighborhood. Police say the Nitzke shot Pigeon with a bean bag, to no effect, before Sweeney fatally shot him.
An investigating officer wrote in an affidavit that Pigeon was "not a threat" to the officers when he was shot and Sweeney's "use of deadly force ... was not justified."
Both officers were placed on paid leave while the shooting was investigated. Court documents do not list an attorney for Sweeney."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/05/oklahoma-city-officer-charged-in-fatal-shooting-man.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTFT_eJoscM
Fuuuuuuuu that was really, really bad
Here ya go. Per the OP, I did all I could to give that LEO the benefit of the doubt. On this one, LEO is screwed. I suspect he heard the bean bag fire, brain registered it as gun fire, and he burned the kid down. Again, they are going for murder 2. Is SOP not usually to announce use of a the less lethal to avoid exactly that? It was dark, so likely didn't know it was a bean bag, or least I suspect that will be his defense:
"Police said Sweeney and Officer Troy Nitzke responded to a report of a suicidal person that night and found Pigeon trying to set fire to himself with a lighter fluid and a lighter in a residential neighborhood. Police say the Nitzke shot Pigeon with a bean bag, to no effect, before Sweeney fatally shot him.
An investigating officer wrote in an affidavit that Pigeon was "not a threat" to the officers when he was shot and Sweeney's "use of deadly force ... was not justified."
Both officers were placed on paid leave while the shooting was investigated. Court documents do not list an attorney for Sweeney."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/05/oklahoma-city-officer-charged-in-fatal-shooting-man.html
[video=youtube;UTFT_eJoscM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTFT_eJoscM[video]
"I didn't know you had a bean bag"
Yeah I'm just a guy doing the MMQB thing but it seems really ****ing stupid to fire off a bean bag in that situation, without explicitly and clearly informing others of what you are going to do
I was the one that posted that, and in this case it appears I was incorrect. It seems the jury had the option of finding him guilty of lower charges.
You may be correct if "reckless manslughter" is much more difficult to prove than "manslaughter"
That's what I had asked earlier. What does the term reckless add if anything. It seems it may indeed raise the bar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter
LowSpeed_HighDrag
12-11-17, 13:15
"I didn't know you had a bean bag"
Yeah I'm just a guy doing the MMQB thing but it seems really ****ing stupid to fire off a bean bag in that situation, without explicitly and clearly informing others of what you are going to do
Generally, we will announce that we have a less lethal device to officers on scene, we'll tell dispatch, and before firing we will announce that we are firing. Sympathetic response is a no-no.
RetroRevolver77
12-11-17, 13:34
I have an update. I have changed my mind on these shootings. In fact I am now pro Judge Dredd. Without actual natural hardships, nor having to fight wildlife in modern society we've been systematically supporting retarded people to breed that normally may have fallen victim to hardships out in the wild. Over time these retarded people had children and their children breed with other retards resulting in the society we now have today. The police are like the modern day grizzly bear or mountain lion in the old west- a person who finds themselves alone doing retarded activities in the wild would quickly become a meal. Just as in the modern world, a person who is in public doing retarded stuff will equally get deaded. While feelings keep us from having IQ tests before allowing breeding in a modern society- at least we can count on our fine police officers to keep certain populations in check.
7n6
Fuuuuuuuu that was really, really bad
Was wondering when/if anyone was gonna respond to that. As I said, makes the OP case look like a good shoot. Considered making that it's own post, but it's not my intent be the "look this yet other terrible shoot from an LEO" knowing the other 99.9% of interactions are not FUBAR like that. But ya, that one is really bad and that LEO is screwed I'd think.
"I didn't know you had a bean bag"
Yeah I'm just a guy doing the MMQB thing but it seems really ****ing stupid to fire off a bean bag in that situation, without explicitly and clearly informing others of what you are going to do
That isn’t the issue. Sweeney is and has been.
Was wondering when/if anyone was gonna respond to that. As I said, makes the OP case look like a good shoot. Considered making that it's own post, but it's not my intent be the "look this yet other terrible shoot from an LEO" knowing the other 99.9% of interactions are not FUBAR like that. But ya, that one is really bad and that LEO is screwed I'd think.
I’m shocked that we are still not talking about the fact that in NONE of these shoots was there any positive identification of a weapon. Zero. There was the potential for a threat. Where in the hell does the potential for a threat equal deadly force? How is that possible? That shit didn’t fly in Baghdad!
More under the transom ;
. His Father Was a Lieutenant in the Mesa PD’s Internal Affairs Unit
https://twitter.com/JamesWyseAZ/status/709793389391302657
Brailsford’s father, also named Philip Brailsford, left the Mesa Police Department last year to join a local law firm. He was a lieutenant and had worked in the department’s Internal Affairs Unit.
My understanding video was inadmissible as evidence, jury did not see it.
I’m shocked that we are still not talking about the fact that in NONE of these shoots was there any positive identification of a weapon. Zero. There was the potential for a threat. Where in the hell does the potential for a threat equal deadly force? How is that possible? That shit didn’t fly in Baghdad!
Not LE, so maybe they can articulate it, but by the time you have positive identification of a weapon it's probably at pointed you. If the LEO can articulate to a reasonable degree the choice to use lethal force, under a given circumstance, positive identification of a weapon is not legally required. Others can correct/clarify that. Obviously, we are talking about event in the OP where none of the LEO here support what they saw, so they are not exactly standing behind that event either as anything but BS. There's lot of vids like his one that shows how fast things go bad when/if a person does not comply with basic reasonable (and we all agree the OP was not reasonable) commands to keep the LEO from getting shot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=884W4l3eoQg
leibermuster
12-11-17, 14:55
Not LEO, so maybe they can articulate it, but by the time you have positive identification of a weapon it's probably pointed you. If they LEO can articulate to a reasonable degree the choice to use lethal force, under a given circumstance, positive identification of a weapon is not legally required. Others can correct/clarify that. Obviously, we are talking about event in the OP where none of the LEO here support what they saw, so they are not exactly standing behind that event either as anything but BS. There's lot of vids like his one that shows how fast things go bad when/if a person does not comply with basic reasonable (and we all agree the OP was not reasonable) commands to keep the LEO from getting shot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=884W4l3eoQg
Poor guy. Just hang the criminal already though. Forget the 35 years.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My understanding video was inadmissible as evidence, jury did not see it.
They saw the complete extended version.
So I've been reading on this trial and apparently the judge deemed some items of evidence to be "prejudicial" against Ofc. Tackleberry? I'm not talking about his discipline record or past, but stuff like actual photos of his Spike's encrusted "You're ****ed" port cover AR, complete with "thin blue line" marked mag. If so, I can see how the jury might've gotten talked out of judging him correctly. The only reason I might've voted to convict of reckless manslaughter instead of 2nd degree murder, would be because the rule for a criminal trial is beyond reasonable doubt and not preponderance of evidence. Unless Tackleberry was standing in a pool of urine when he was done, he straight up murdered that guy while his hand was still going towards his back, not coming out. And the only reason I would vote to convict him is because I couldn't vote to convict the entire department of negligence. You can't tell me that he and Sgt. Simon Says weren't known issues for the Department. I think they deserve to be owned by the deceased's wife and have the DoJ up their butts with a proctoscope while we're at it. Speaking of Sgt. Says, I hope he gets butt cancer and AIDS from the ladyboys in the PI. He should've been convicted of manslaughter for his criminal negligence. :mad:
Not LEO, so maybe they can articulate it, but by the time you have positive identification of a weapon it's probably pointed you. If they LEO can articulate to a reasonable degree the choice to use lethal force, under a given circumstance, positive identification of a weapon is not legally required. Others can correct/clarify that. Obviously, we are talking about event in the OP where none of the LEO here support what they saw, so they are not exactly standing behind that event either as anything but BS. There's lot of vids like his one that shows how fast things go bad when/if a person does not comply with basic reasonable (and we all agree the OP was not reasonable) commands to keep the LEO from getting shot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=884W4l3eoQg
Uh, yeah dude- that’s just the nature of the biz. That’s exactly why a lot of people sign up. Just because it’s dangerous and you’re at a disadvantage doesn’t mean you get to shoot people in the face because they might be a threat in the future, which is exactly what happened in Mesa.
Uh, yeah dude- that’s just the nature of the biz. That’s exactly why a lot of people sign up. Just because it’s dangerous and you’re at a disadvantage doesn’t mean you get to shoot people in the face because they might be a threat in the future, which is exactly what happened in Mesa.
Um, no one here is defending what happened in Mesa. As for your other more general comments, not my lane in terms of the legality of having to wait for a positive ID on a weapon before employing lethal force in a given situation. I do not believe they are legally required to wait for a positive ID on a weapon before using lethal force. Someone else can pick that up with more details/corrections.
Um, no one here is defending what happened in Mesa. As for your other more general comments, not my lane in terms of the legality of having to wait for a positive ID on a weapon before employing lethal force in a given situation. I do not believe they are not legally required to wait for a positive ID on a weapon before using lethal force. Someone else can pick that up with more details/corrections.
I would be extremely curious as to the legality of being able to use lethal force when there is no weapon or lethal threat present.
I've read this thread, and made a couple of posts. I don't know if any of you have sat on a jury, testified, or attended a trial which dealt with such matters. such matters.
Juries in such cases are given specific instructions as to the way they are to interpret the evidence collected. Generally the biggest thin is that the jury is not to consider anything they know that the officer did not know at the time of the incident. Now we all know the dead man did not have a weapon, that is 20/20 hindsight, and should not be used in the juries decision making.
The juries are instructed that they are going to hear expert testimony from both sides and can use that expert testimony in formulating their decisions.
There are also some other issues addressed, they can be found in the Graham v. Connor decision.
That they were not allowed to see the dust cover or the magazine is not surprising, they would be prejudicial to the defendant and, unless placed on the rifle/magazine immediately before, or during, the incident, do not speak to the officer's state of mind.
If you were the defendant that is the way you would want the judge and jury to look at things.
Knowing how the process works, even though I had previously posted that I would not be comfortable testifying that the officer's actions were warranted, I can readily see how the jury in this case ruled the way they did.
The redress for these matters, particularly this one, will come from the civil suit, which I'd be willing to bet is going to be a negotiated settlement, versus a trial.
Uh, yeah dude- that’s just the nature of the biz. That’s exactly why a lot of people sign up. Just because it’s dangerous and you’re at a disadvantage doesn’t mean you get to shoot people in the face because they might be a threat in the future, which is exactly what happened in Mesa.********************************
*********************************************************************************************************************************
************************************************************* THIS ***************************************************************
I would be extremely curious as to the legality of being able to use lethal force when there is no weapon or lethal threat present.
something something hindsight is 20/20 something something wait until you are being shot before you can draw your gun or shoot
something something hindsight is 20/20 something something wait until you are being shot before you can draw your gun or shoot
Warp, I’m not sure what your two way range experience is, but that’s exactly how it works. You don’t get to shoot people until you positively identify a lethal threat to yourself or others. Cops shouldn’t get a pass.
Warp, I’m not sure what your two way range experience is, but that’s exactly how it works. You don’t get to shoot people until you positively identify a lethal threat to yourself or others. Cops shouldn’t get a pass.
The laws I am familiar with make it a reasonable belief of serious bodily harm/death (or maybe forcible felony or similar verbiage), which does not necessary require a lethal threat to exist when using the 20/20 vision of hindsight while sitting at a computer dissecting a video.
Yep, they would not let the widow see it , my bad !
Warp, I’m not sure what your two way range experience is, but that’s exactly how it works. You don’t get to shoot people until you positively identify a lethal threat to yourself or others. Cops shouldn’t get a pass.
Strictly as a mental exercise, if someone in Baghdad drove up, jumped out of a car, wearing a thick coat, and ran toward you yelling Ala snack bar and as you raised your rifle to make it very clear that was a bad idea while yelling "stop" but he continued on toward you, and you dropped him, would that be considered "reasonable belief of serious bodily harm/death your life was in danger" to pull that trigger, or would you be screwed? I honestly don't know the answer, but seems an example of something where there is not a positive ID of threat per se, it would be hard pressed to expect you you wait 'till you're people are red mist before engaging.
The laws I am familiar with make it a reasonable belief of serious bodily harm/death (or maybe forcible felony or similar verbiage), which does not necessary require a lethal threat to exist when using the 20/20 vision of hindsight while sitting at a computer dissecting a video.
The thing of it is, I've spent countless hours with rifles pointed at people, dissecting their intentions- and every single time I've needed to positively ID a weapon before making extra holes in their bodies. I couldn't say, "Well, clearly since he was digging he was planting a bomb, so I shot him." Or "Well, I told him to stop moving, but he kept moving, so I shot him." Those are the laws I'm familiar with. Not the "I was scared that there might be a weapon on him so I shot him in the face and neck multiple times before I could find out. I mean, there might have been something, am I right?!"
What did that line of questioning look like-
"Did you see a weapon?"
"No."
"Why'd you shoot him in the face five times?"
"Well, I told him not to move!"
"So since he did you shot him in the face five times?"
"Of course! There MIGHT have been a gun! It's not like I'm going to wait to take a human life before I find out!"
This was a horrendous shoot, and we need to change the line of thinking that if a police officer tells you to stop doing something and you continue to do said thing that means he can shoot you. That's absolutely insane.
Strictly as a mental exercise, if someone in Baghdad drove up, jumped out of a car, wearing a thick coat, and ran toward you yelling Ala snack bar and as you raised your rifle to make it very clear that was a bad idea while yelling "stop" but he continued on toward you, and you dropped him, would that be considered "reasonable suspicion" your life was in danger, or would you be screwed? I honestly don't know the answer, but seems an example of something where there is not a positive ID of threat per se, it would be hard pressed to expect you you wait 'till you're people are red mist before engaging.
I'm not sure there's a correlation to this example with that one...
That's sarcasm because there is absolutely none.
In Ohio, for ccw, the law is/was in fear of life or great bodily harm or something to that effect.
The litmus test is if a reasonable person would share the fear in that circumstance.
Never was “positive ID of lethal threat” ever mentioned in either the class nor the booklet published by the OH attorney general. This is not military and we have different laws as civilians.
Edit: I know Leo have specific rules, point is military ROE do not apply to everyone.
In Ohio, for ccw, the law is/was in fear of life or great bodily harm or something to that effect.
The litmus test is if a reasonable person would share the fear in that circumstance.
Never was “positive ID of lethal threat” ever mentioned in either the class nor the booklet published by the OH attorney general. This is not military and we have different laws as civilians.
I took that class, too- in Texas. I would think that there would be a greater burden placed here in the United States during peacetime with fellow American's than I experienced as a Scout/Sniper deployed in war. I personally don't think the "I was in fear!" line justifies taking someone's life. That sounds a lot like a rule that someone who has never had the experience of taking another human's life made up.
I also think you're missing the point. How do we go straight to- great fear of serious bodily injury or death because someone reached for their waistband? There's a lot of ASSumption with that line of thinking. Just because an officer thinks there is a threat doesn’t make it a threat. His fear shouldn’t be automatically assumed as logical and law.
We need to stop teaching officers to use the tools on their belts to solve problems.
I took that class, too- in Texas. I would think that there would be a greater burden placed here in the United States during peacetime with fellow American's than I experienced as a Scout/Sniper deployed in war. I personally don't think the "I was in fear!" line justifies taking someone's life. That sounds a lot like a rule that someone who has never had the experience of taking another human's life made up.
I also think you're missing the point. How do we go straight to- great fear of serious bodily injury or death because someone reached for their waistband? There's a lot of ASSumption with that line of thinking. Just because an officer thinks there is a threat doesn’t make it a threat. His fear shouldn’t be automatically assumed as logical and law.
We need to stop teaching officers to use the tools on their belts to solve problems.
The reasonable fear of ___ is pretty typical for state laws in the US.
Nobody automatically assumes fear is logical, that's why the word "reasonable" precedes the fear. Bare fear doesn't qualify. Reasonable fear or what a reasonable person would perceive in that situation, etc, which is different than always requiring an actual lethal threat, as determined using hindsight and likely more information that would ever have been available to the shooter at the time. Common example is a toy or fake gun or replica that fires blanks or maybe an airsoft gun, you don't get hung out to dry because there was no lethal threat, since it's reasonable to believe the thing that looks like a gun and is being pointed at you like a gun is in fact a gun. Now, clearly, that is NOT what happened in this situation, just sayin', as a big picture generality type thing as this was drifting towards, there are reasons it the reasonableness standard is there and not a strict 'lethal threat or not'. A 'furtive move' towards or into your waistband falls somewhere in that continuum, where precisely it falls comes down to totality of the circumstances, local leanings, current political atmosphere, skin color of all involved, what lies or intentional misrepresentations the media comes up with, how much video evidence there is, is the DA up for election and what demographic does DA need to get re-elected, the list could go on and on lol
In this specific situation it's kind of been covered...the circumstances that existed at the time the trigger was pulled should not have existed to begin with, at minimum
There is no weapon present and unless they found one I’m not sure what his crime is.
Just curious, what is the highest stress situation you've ever been in?
Just curious, what is the highest stress situation you've ever been in?
I was merely commenting on what I saw in the video that is all.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I took that class, too- in Texas. I would think that there would be a greater burden placed here in the United States during peacetime with fellow American's than I experienced as a Scout/Sniper deployed in war. I personally don't think the "I was in fear!" line justifies taking someone's life. That sounds a lot like a rule that someone who has never had the experience of taking another human's life made up.
I also think you're missing the point. How do we go straight to- great fear of serious bodily injury or death because someone reached for their waistband? There's a lot of ASSumption with that line of thinking. Just because an officer thinks there is a threat doesn’t make it a threat. His fear shouldn’t be automatically assumed as logical and law.
We need to stop teaching officers to use the tools on their belts to solve problems.
I'm not seeing any LEO's here defending this shoot, and it would be difficult, if not impossible for me to. One of the skills that is becoming more in vogue and demanded is the ability to de escalate. I truly believe that as a profesional law enforcement officer we should spend 95%+ of our time in a sheep dog mentality versus a warrior mentality. I would like to point out a few things to consider.
In some circumstances a quick reach for the waistband could result in a justified shooting, depending on the totality of the circumstances.
Rules of engagement in theater changed all the time. I very much felt at times the ROE made it much more difficult to use deadly force in Afghanistan than here at home. Consider that I was in a 40,000lb. vic and other than IED's and RPG's we were pretty safe for an initial contact.
When I was in Iraq VBIED's were the rage. If a vic approached our convoy they got, very quickly, shots to the flanks, then the 240 or M-2 went grill to kill. Period. Your experience was different, I understand. Depending on time frame and AO they changed, all the time.
Growing up I had this idea that law enforcement and the military were very similar. After 30 years as a LEO and not quite that many in the military with a couple trips downrange I've almost decided that unless you're a miitary cop the only similarity is a rank structure.
I'm not saying what you're saying is wrong but that a frame of reference as a deployed service member is a very different tasking than a domestic police officer. I truly believe that as a LEO my obligation in most cases is to be the peacemaker and to improve a situation. Sadly, this was not the outcome in this case.
I'm not seeing any LEO's here defending this shoot, and it would be difficult, if not impossible for me to. One of the skills that is becoming more in vogue and demanded is the ability to de escalate. I truly believe that as a profesional law enforcement officer we should spend 95%+ of our time in a sheep dog mentality versus a warrior mentality. I would like to point out a few things to consider.
In some circumstances a quick reach for the waistband could result in a justified shooting, depending on the totality of the circumstances.
Rules of engagement in theater changed all the time. I very much felt at times the ROE made it much more difficult to use deadly force in Afghanistan than here at home. Consider that I was in a 40,000lb. vic and other than IED's and RPG's we were pretty safe for an initial contact.
When I was in Iraq VBIED's were the rage. If a vic approached our convoy they got, very quickly, shots to the flanks, then the 240 or M-2 went grill to kill. Period. Your experience was different, I understand. Depending on time frame and AO they changed, all the time.
Growing up I had this idea that law enforcement and the military were very similar. After 30 years as a LEO and not quite that many in the military with a couple trips downrange I've almost decided that unless you're a miitary cop the only similarity is a rank structure.
I'm not saying what you're saying is wrong but that a frame of reference as a deployed service member is a very different tasking than a domestic police officer. I truly believe that as a LEO my obligation in most cases is to be the peacemaker and to improve a situation. Sadly, this was not the outcome in this case.
Walking rounds in from the road to the windshield was our SOP as well- our experiences were almost identical- here’s the issue- this guy was not in any way being aggressive. He was immediately complying. This was not a guy screaming Allahu and running a checkpoint. This was a desperate crying man trying his absolute best to comply- something everyone who watched that video can see, but it’s like we are trying to catch him ****ing up, rather than seeing what he is trying to do right, as he literally cries to not be shot. Right before he’s shot in the face. It’s unbelievable that someone could watch that video and legitimately feel that guy is a threat. That could have been some random dude walking down the hallway drunk... no one even established that he was the guy they were looking for.
That’s the second time someone has compared him to a sober Iraqi or Afghani in a war zone screaming as they run a checkpoint.
Outlander Systems
12-11-17, 19:18
A-****ing-men.
Walking rounds in from the road to the windshield was our SOP as well- our experiences were almost identical- here’s the issue- this guy was not in any way being aggressive. He was immediately complying. This was not a guy screaming Allahu and running a checkpoint. This was a desperate crying man trying his absolute best to comply- something everyone who watched that video can see, but at like we are trying to catch him ****ing up, rather than seeing what he is trying to do, as he cries to not be shot. Right before he’s shot in the face. It’s unbelievable that someone could watch that video and legitimately feel that guy is a threat. That could have been some random dude walking down the hallway drunk... no one even established that he was the guy they were looking for.
The laws I am familiar with make it a reasonable belief of serious bodily harm/death (or maybe forcible felony or similar verbiage), which does not necessary require a lethal threat to exist when using the 20/20 vision of hindsight while sitting at a computer dissecting a video.
Correct, the question here is whether Ofc. Tackleberry's fear was reasonable or not. We already know Sgt. Simon Says was being unreasonable. We already know their tactics suck bad. Based on what I saw in the video, I don't think it was reasonable. Did Sgt. Says make it more likely that the cover officer would overreact? Yes. But that doesn't excuse a trained officer with 5 years experience from overreacting. Does the fact that Ofc. Tackleberry cruising around with equipment outside policy and quite frankly, constituting an embarassment for the agency matter? Yes. It establishes a pattern of disregard, but that's for a civil jury to decide how bad to stick it to the Mesa taxpayers, not the criminal court. But they shouldn't have been denied the actual evidence Tackleberry brought to the scene because you know damned well it wouldn't have been withheld from a criminal jury for a non-lawgiver.
Strictly as a mental exercise, if someone in Baghdad drove up, jumped out of a car, wearing a thick coat, and ran toward you yelling Ala snack bar and as you raised your rifle to make it very clear that was a bad idea while yelling "stop" but he continued on toward you, and you dropped him, would that be considered "reasonable belief of serious bodily harm/death your life was in danger" to pull that trigger, or would you be screwed? I honestly don't know the answer, but seems an example of something where there is not a positive ID of threat per se, it would be hard pressed to expect you you wait 'till you're people are red mist before engaging.
That's not an equal analogy. An equal analogy would be a random call that a Muslim man was seen inside a dwelling in a green zone, through a window, with an AK. You roll to him with the assumption that he's Hadji about to snipe the world, call him out in his underwear, can readily see that his underwear don't work to support a rifle, prone him out, give him a long winded soliloquy on his responsibilities, establish that there's obviously a language barrier, then shoot him when he doesn't comply exactly as you instruct.
Knowing what we know about .mil ROE in Iraq, would this soldier get a free pass? Umm, no...
I used to be .mil in a combat MOS and used to be LE (and still work closely with them in my current position). I'm all about officer survival and there are some truly evil beings out there they have to deal with. This one obviously wasn't one of them and you can't assume that everyone out there is trying to kill you. Sure you prepare for the possibility, but you remain professional. These clowns didn't remain professional. They overrode common sense in order to make the situation worse than it ever was. Officers like that should never go 10-8. :(
That's not an equal analogy
Was not intended to be an equal analogy, just an example where no weapon has been identified, the (potential) threat warned of the consequences of continuing, and making the call to shoot vs wait and find out. I'm sure situations like that arrived. What if the guy who was doing that as found to have no bomb on him? Would his behavior leading the person to shoot constitute "reasonable belief of serious bodily harm/death your life was in danger" ? It was as much a Q as a (seemingly poor) example of there being a justified time to use lethal force yet not a positive ID of threat per se in mil setting.
Per usual, the totality of the circumstances dictate the conclusion. In the OP example, no one here supports the "reasonable belief of serious bodily harm/death your life was in danger" response by the shooter, yet I do not expect LEO to wait until they have positively ID a weapon before using lethal force in all situations.
Anyway, not my lane, so I will leave to LEOs and mil to debate.
Was not intended to be an equal analogy, just an example where no weapon has been identified, the (potential) threat warned of the consequences of continuing, and making the call to shoot vs wait and find out. I'm sure situations like that arrived. What if the guy who was doing that as found to have no bomb on him? Would his behavior leading the person to shoot constitute "reasonable belief of serious bodily harm/death your life was in danger" ? It was as much a Q as a (seemingly poor) example of there being a justified time to use lethal force yet not a positive ID of threat per se in mil setting.
Per usual, the totality of the circumstances dictate the conclusion. In the OP example, no one here supports the "reasonable belief of serious bodily harm/death your life was in danger" response by the shooter, yet I do not expect LEO to wait until they have positively ID a weapon before using lethal force in all situations.
Anyway, not my lane, so I will leave to LEOs and mil to debate.
No I get it and you're correct, a reasonable person having a belief that the subject constitutes an immediate threat of death or great bodily harm is the standard. Just keep in mind that the closer you are to the line, the greater the likelihood that a jury won't agree.
No I get it and you're correct, a reasonable person having a belief that the subject constitutes an immediate threat of death or great bodily harm is the standard. Just keep in mind that the closer you are to the line, the greater the likelihood that a jury won't agree.
As it should be.
noonesshowmonkey
12-12-17, 02:49
Done.
There's a lot of jib jab in here from folks that aren't in the bidness. People need to settle into their seats and let the adults talk.
The only opinions that matter (are informed through education and experience) in this are those of educated professionals (lawyers, LEOs, etc.) or someone with the titular 'Justice', as in, 'Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg'.
If you haven't familiarized yourself yet with the actual source documentation for how these situations are taken apart legally, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center has a lovely .pdf that covers the basics (https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/2016%20UOF%20Podcasts.pdf). (Big shout out to JPMuscle for the link to such a concise document!) The two key pieces of casework on the subject--both contained within the previously linked .pdf and sub-listed here as separate .pdf's--are Graham V. Connor (https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/PartIGrahamvConnor.pdf) and Tennessee V. Garner (https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/PartIIIDeadlyForce-TennvGarner.pdf). The former establishes a standard of 'reasonableness' related to a use of force or seizure (which killing a man is a seizure of his life), and the latter applies a 'totality of circumstances' model to any seizure, and particularly to the use of deadly force on a fleeing suspect. Give them a read.
I strap a weapon to my body, throw on a IIIa vest, and sally forth almost every damned day into what is per capita in the top 3 most violent city in the country. Nota bene: opinions are my own, do not represent my agency, or the institution of the The Police.
When I first encountered this incident, my partner was playing the video from the passenger seat while I was finishing a report. At first, I thought that it was cop-on-cop punking; cops making fun of other dumb fudd cops. Then, it kept going, and I thought, 'maybe this is a training video where the instructor is showing everyone how little he knows...', which, if you're in the bidness, is highly plausible. Finally, it struck me. 'Holy shit, this is real.' Then, I watched a compliant, unarmed citizen get burned down in a hotel hallway.
I expect an appeal in this case, and I would not be surprised if this one marches it's way up the ladder to the Supreme Court for that oh so valuable opinion. Or, if you did your homework, you will look at the reasonableness and totality of circumstances and see and that appeal will likely die before it gets to the Supreme Court, which will overturn the holding of the lower court.
That's all interesting and cute, but the Rodney King officers walked too until they caught some Fed charges.
There's the objective reasonableness standard being glossed over.
"What did he know and when did he know it" won't fly like it used to. Juries can get instructed of a lot of things that may have influenced how this played out
Seeing as how the officer was fired, they know they will likely lose the civil case.
Seen it personally on another shooting over drugs that had way less disturbing bideo than this. Guy caught an MP5 burst while prone due to an officer having a ND.
I almost expect this to set a new standard in compliance training.
While the officer who shot was wrong the SGT had scene command and sounded like a rookie just out of FTO giving some of the dumbest verbal commands I thought I'd never hear. That's the guy who has a lot of vicarious liability (important word if you ever wear stripes) as he is responsible for everything that happened.
This case is not over by a damn sight.
But these are things you notice after 15 years.
I really, really hope you never get put in such a situation. People lose homes over suits like this.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
12-12-17, 09:02
I have avoided giving my opinion on this, and I think I still will.
Two things though...
Non Police Officers: Try your best to comply with orders from the Police, whether you agree or not. The best place to argue and fight is the courtroom. If you are going to render public opinions on police work, try to at least read some case law first.
Police Officers: Get it out of your heads that an OIS is somehow cool or badass. It will wreck you in ways you do not understand, whether it was justified or not. Also, give clear, concise, and easy to follow verbal commands. Know what you are going to say ahead of time, and train on it. Don't ever become that cop (that we all know) that thinks he is better than non police officers and sees everyone as a threat. We are helpers, who sometimes are sadly forced to take lives.
I will never comply to a "cross your legs, hands in the air, and crawl" command, ever. That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard, and not how I was trained or how I trained anyone afterwards. I hope people see this and become completely non-compliant once they are on the ground with their arms out to their sides, palms up, and feet crossed. Do not get up, do not move, he says move, tell him to come get you and wait. Nobody should die the way that kid did in that video.
I will never comply to a "cross your legs, hands in the air, and crawl" command, ever. That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard, and not how I was trained or how I trained anyone afterwards. I hope people see this and become completely non-compliant once they are on the ground with their arms out to their sides, palms up, and feet crossed. Do not get up, do not move, he says move, tell him to come get you and wait. Nobody should die the way that kid did in that video.
It was a bizarre, macabre game of Simon says, with a pre-determined outcome.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
12-12-17, 09:30
I will never comply to a "cross your legs, hands in the air, and crawl" command, ever. That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard, and not how I was trained or how I trained anyone afterwards. I hope people see this and become completely non-compliant once they are on the ground with their arms out to their sides, palms up, and feet crossed. Do not get up, do not move, he says move, tell him to come get you and wait. Nobody should die the way that kid did in that video.
This is the first video that I've ever seen this technique used. I've worked for two agencies, learned three different DTAC disciplines, and have never seen anything other than lay on your belly, put your arms out to your sides like you are flying, cross ankles (or spread legs), palms up to the sky, look away from me, do not move. Even in felony stops or an active burg in a dark hallway where I need you to come to me, you will walk backwards with hands in the air until I tell you to stop, then go to your knees while I cuff and search.
To a certain extent I agree with you, if the orders become so FUBAR'd that you cant follow them, just prone with hands deliberately out to your sides and stay put. You may get bean-bagged, but you probably wont get shot.
There's a lot of jib jab in here from folks that aren't in the bidness. People need to settle into their seats and let the adults talk.
The only opinions that matter (are informed through education and experience) in this are those of educated professionals (lawyers, LEOs, etc.) or someone with the titular 'Justice', as in, 'Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg'.
If you haven't familiarized yourself yet with the actual source documentation for how these situations are taken apart legally, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center has a lovely .pdf that covers the basics (https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/2016%20UOF%20Podcasts.pdf). (Big shout out to JPMuscle for the link to such a concise document!) The two key pieces of casework on the subject--both contained within the previously linked .pdf and sub-listed here as separate .pdf's--are Graham V. Connor (https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/PartIGrahamvConnor.pdf) and Tennessee V. Garner (https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/PartIIIDeadlyForce-TennvGarner.pdf). The former establishes a standard of 'reasonableness' related to a use of force or seizure (which killing a man is a seizure of his life), and the latter applies a 'totality of circumstances' model to any seizure, and particularly to the use of deadly force on a fleeing suspect. Give them a read.
I strap a weapon to my body, throw on a IIIa vest, and sally forth almost every damned day into what is per capita in the top 3 most violent city in the country. Nota bene: opinions are my own, do not represent my agency, or the institution of the The Police.
When I first encountered this incident, my partner was playing the video from the passenger seat while I was finishing a report. At first, I thought that it was cop-on-cop punking; cops making fun of other dumb fudd cops. Then, it kept going, and I thought, 'maybe this is a training video where the instructor is showing everyone how little he knows...', which, if you're in the bidness, is highly plausible. Finally, it struck me. 'Holy shit, this is real.' Then, I watched a compliant, unarmed citizen get burned down in a hotel hallway.
I expect an appeal in this case, and I would not be surprised if this one marches it's way up the ladder to the Supreme Court for that oh so valuable opinion. Or, if you did your homework, you will look at the reasonableness and totality of circumstances and see and that appeal will likely die before it gets to the Supreme Court, which will overturn the holding of the lower court.
First of all, I appreciate your insight and your desire to do the job the right way.
Second, it's people like the rest of us, and the millions of people who have seen the video once it hit social media, that will end up sitting on juries of cases like this, so, yeah, our opinions matter. It's because of this "jib jab" that education occurs that allows for insight, changing of minds, and God forbid, some clarity if we have be in a jury box for a similar case.
This is the first video that I've ever seen this technique used. I've worked for two agencies, learned three different DTAC disciplines, and have never seen anything other than lay on your belly, put your arms out to your sides like you are flying, cross ankles (or spread legs), palms up to the sky, look away from me, do not move. Even in felony stops or an active burg in a dark hallway where I need you to come to me, you will walk backwards with hands in the air until I tell you to stop, then go to your knees while I cuff and search.
To a certain extent I agree with you, if the orders become so FUBAR'd that you cant follow them, just prone with hands deliberately out to your sides and stay put. You may get bean-bagged, but you probably wont get shot.
Thats exactly what I was going to say; if you want him to come to you, walk him backwards towards you to the point that you feel it is safe to go hands on. Then you instruct him to get on his knees, lay down, extend his arms out to his sides, palms up, and cross his feet. His head should be facing away from you, you approach from the feet. If you need to drag him out of the hallway you can do so once hes on the ground, or if you are working with ballistic shields, move then up to pin the arms and provide cover for your hands on guy conducting the search. Id much rather catch a couple boots, knees, or get rough handled a bit for telling the officer to f--k off than get smoked for losing my balance doing a sobriety check on my knees.
It was a bizarre, macabre game of Simon says, ...
It actually looks worse, if that could possibly be, with the sound off.
It is -immediately- apparent that he wanted to comply and was basically in no condition to be following those orders under the duress of a death penalty. ... and they had a visual baseline with the girl. She did ok, yet the guy never had his physical wits about him.
It actually looks worse, if that could possibly be, with the sound off.
It is -immediately- apparent that he wanted to comply and was basically in no condition to be following those orders under the duress of a death penalty. ... and they had a visual baseline with the girl. She did ok, yet the guy never had his physical wits about him.
He was drunk off his A$$ with a BAC that would knock many out cold. They didn't know that of course, but obviously should have detected something was not right, and used another approach as others outlined, which from comments so far, is the standard way to handle it vs the bizarre thing we all witnessed.
I'm not a cop, so I guess this statement doesn't matter, but I'll add it anyway.
Don't know how many here tried it, but I did. I tried walking forward on my knees with my arms upward, on a short nap carpet. Wobbly, but doable.
So, I crossed one ankle over the other. Pretty much a total failure, and, as I started to pitch forward, my arms swung back in an attempt to balance.
So, if I ever get in that position, I'm gonna just stay prone, and hope they don't kill me anyway, for non-compliance.
Sent from my SGP612 using Tapatalk
I'm not a cop, so I guess this statement doesn't matter, but I'll add it anyway.
Don't know how many here tried it, but I did. I tried walking forward on my knees with my arms upward, on a short nap carpet. Wobbly, but doable.
So, I crossed one ankle over the other. Pretty much a total failure, and, as I started to pitch forward, my arms swung back in an attempt to balance.
So, if I ever get in that position, I'm gonna just stay prone, and hope they don't kill me anyway, for non-compliance.
Sent from my SGP612 using Tapatalk
That might not be enough...
Officer charged with shooting autistic man’s unarmed caregiver (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/officer-charged-with-shooting-autistic-mans-unarmed-caregiver/)
"Why'd you shoot me?!"
"I dunno."
Speaking of arrest, there was a failed bombing attempt in NYC yesterday, maybe some of you heard of it between the media jabbering about Trump gawking at some beauty pageant contestants years ago. On the arrest, I wonder if the police gave him instructions to reach for the sky, get up on his knees, cross his legs AND crawl toward them. He wasn't shot, so he must have followed their orders to the letter.
Why has no one mentioned that when his hand came back around you could clearly see it was empty BEFORE the first shot went? You could also see that he wasn't even looking at the officers. He was shot in the top of his head.
I'm not a cop, so I guess this statement doesn't matter, but I'll add it anyway.
Don't know how many here tried it, but I did. I tried walking forward on my knees with my arms upward, on a short nap carpet. Wobbly, but doable.
So, I crossed one ankle over the other. Pretty much a total failure, and, as I started to pitch forward, my arms swung back in an attempt to balance.
So, if I ever get in that position, I'm gonna just stay prone, and hope they don't kill me anyway, for non-compliance.
Sent from my SGP612 using Tapatalk
After thinking this over and breaking it down:
The point of crossing the feet (that I know of) is to immobilize.
The fact that he was instructed to immobilize himself, then be mobile while immobilized is what clearly shows the instructor had no clue what he was doing.
“The hands up, now crawl” was another.
I’ve seen quite a few use of force vids. I’ve never seen a suspect told to crawl before. It was just weird.
Why has no one mentioned that when his hand came back around you could clearly see it was empty BEFORE the first shot went? You could also see that he wasn't even looking at the officers. He was shot in the top of his head.
Mentioned a couple times earlier by one or more people.
But you are all correct. At that point he was little more than a wobbling, slobbering, face planting, drunk on his knees
noonesshowmonkey
12-12-17, 17:41
Gone.
The findings were only in State court. I will not be surprised for even a moment when the Title 18 indictment comes down. I do, however, expect an appeal within the State system to pursue some variation of Negligent Homicide.
He was charged and found not guilty. What do you think they are going to appeal, not letting in the dust cover? I think that is unlikely.
I will be surprised if this does not work its way into academies across the nation.
Some academies have been training officers using case-based analysis for years. Unfortunately, how many large metropolitan academies have a lawyer on staff who's only job is to teach the law and use of force? Our little state Academy has two, three if you count the AD who teaches liability to our firearms instructors.
We still have trainers nationwide advocating 'ask, tell, make' that, IMO, is some old school stuff that should have gone by the wayside a decade ago.
Preach this from the roofs:
Let's not gloss over another key element within this incident: there was a hallway full of cops, and not a single one said, "this is ****ed. I need to stop this." Nobody recognized that the verbal commands were awful, failing, and were escalating the danger, and if they did recognize that fact, they failed to / refused to speak up. Moral courage is incredibly difficult, especially within the fraternities of The Police. It is, however, the only true currency of Law Enforcement. I would rather ruin my career by speaking up and telling Sargeypoo that he's a fudd about to get someone killed than stand by and watch someone get murdered by my team mates. I know that about myself, and have practical experience of being the dissenting voice on a scene, in an office, etc. This isn't idle ruminating. But, not everyone is so cavalier with their future.
You shouldn't have to be cavalier about your future to do what is right, but......
I once attended a training called 'Under Color of Law' which addressed 1983 actions. The moderator showed a patrol car video of a beat down after a foot pursuit. Officer kicking and beating the what became an unresponsive subject. What was most shocking to me was not the beat down, what shocked me was that no less than four officers stood around and did nothing to stop it. The question I had was would all of the over 1300 sworn officers of that agency react the same way?
We need to change that mentality.
People come first.
All people. The system sucks, all judges,are drunks and pill poppers, most juries are,retards, and few chiefs or sheriffs have inspired me (all I vare about is my check clearing).
But.....people come first.
I have seen some rotten people who actually did come out of the system a bit better.
You gotta try and take them in one piece.
Swapping lead is one thing but there is SO MUCH OUT THERE that makes it easier to avoid getting bloody.
I remember when tasers were luxuries, single stacks were still general issue, and rifles were out of reach for all but the really privileged.
You either used OC, ASP, went hands on, or resorted to a 9 shot pistol. This is in the 21st century mind you.
There are qualified people and organizations begging to give officers training past "Respect muh authoritay!"
And also this little subculture of cops who want to get "blooded". Join the military for that.
A lot of perps are either scared or desperate. Its quick and violent.
An officer trains hard so he doesnt have to fight. Not everybody is a comic villain. Once you kill a man you cannot bring him back. Once you get a rep, nobody looks at you anymore.
You aren't a badass. You are the guy who killed LaDarius' cousin or Shawnda's son.
And thats for LIFE.
Whether you think there is merit or see them as whiners; there is a demographic who fears the police.
Nobody should fear the police. Fear consequences, but not police.
More "diversity" and women arent the answer neither are more retards,who want a free gun and to drive like assholes.
We need real, world-lived teachable people. I started young. real young. If I met younger me, I'd probably beat his ass and even then he was still more conscientious than his peers.
This "Us vs Them" mentality has to stop.
And that Untouchables line "As long as you go home" is stupid.
Some of the finest policework is devoid of drama, profanity, or action.
It looks really boring to watch.
Honestly the most realistic cop show was Barney Miller. Guys hanging around discussing who they banged and making fun of people out of ear shot.
Meh screw it
ramairthree
12-12-17, 23:31
Why has no one mentioned that when his hand came back around you could clearly see it was empty BEFORE the first shot went? You could also see that he wasn't even looking at the officers. He was shot in the top of his head.
(Disclaimers-
I was not a starting team, varsity squad Operator. I have not done OTC, SFARTEC, etc.
I was not LE, have no LE training, have never done a ride along, don’t watch COPs, etc.
I have been on a number of night , and handful of day, objectives - some of which invoked casualties- within this environment.)
I would like to address
1- why it may appear he decided to shoot they when he was waving at him with an empty hand after scratching his ass instead of when he thought he was reaching for a gun,
2- Why the opinions being offered that military SOF guys just kill everything left and right, and could have no valid opinion of what occurred, are inherently wrong, etc. is not entirely correct, and present an opinion from that mindset. Doesn’t mean its right. But seek first to understand. And even if you vehemently disagree, why those opinions matter.
3- have two questions I would genuinely like to have people address.
1-
Probably because up close and personal in real time he was pulling the trigger when he realized the hand was going back and thought he was going for the gun, instead of viewing from the comfort of his couch on his laptop. Why don’t you have a buddy pull out a pact timer and act it out and see how that works? Not being sarcastic. How reasonable is it based on those times he started to react with hand going back but rounds impacting as hand coming forward?
Shooting people from far away is the sweet science of Issac Newton and the math all works and it’s classic physics.
Up close and personal and people squirting in all directions and popping out and you think you heard a meow, is there really a cat in the box, but if you wait and look it might not be there but your’re dead, Quantum shit, and it’s impossible per the Internet you actually could hit anyone in the day time with your Eotech, because you zeroed it at night, but you did, but you just use your PEQ mostly at night, and holy shit there really is a cat running along that wall, Peter Gabriel video shit.
2-
It sucks a young guy got drunk, did stupid shit, was jacked around by an assclown,
And then got shot reaching behind his back. But they did not randomly just go looking for someone to shoot. It did not get real in the middle of telling him to quit skateboarding on the stair rail or they were called because he was smoking in a no smoking room.
Like it or not, I am a fellow citizen that could be sitting on a jury. You guys act like military shows no restraint and nothing about that applies, etc. I get it. Cops aren’t with two dozen people they know and seconds later ten are dead or expectant, some more are trying to die a little slower, and most of the rest will also be needing surgery. Your mistakes, and civilians in self defense here, may be under a little more scrutiny.
But On K/Cs some people actually get captured instead of killed. And there are often a bunch of women and kids to sort out on the objective and we don’t tend to leave them in a pile of bodies. I have seen more restraint than this, and I have seen less.
What I think went down from a tactics perspective.
A bunch of LEOs that are supposed to do a million different things perfect with minimal entrance standards, no significant assessment, indoc, or selection process, and limited training rolled on a TST with on the go planning because-
They were told a guy was out on his balcony waving a gun around, or was seen waving a pistol out his window- or something along those lines.
On the way to their call out or breach, or whatever monkeyfuk of amateur hour event they actually planned to do, that is seen in the vast majority of these videos,
Their ki got thrown way off by the guy just be bopping out of his room with a chick. There were no longer on the way to do what they planned.
Loudmouth assclown was thrown trying to figure out what to do and sound all professional and bad ass instead of clueless and discombobulated. Cover guy was doing his job. The others seemed a little hesitant, indecisive, etc. but managed to roll up the chick. The guy had told them no one else was in the room he just left, where a man had been seen waving a gun around out the window.
He seem scared, confused, unpredictable, and not acting right- which could mean something as harmless as life is not going on as planned for corky and he is just consfused and scared, or dudes like this can actually be dangerous in close quarters.
It’s not like they are the EPA swat team going full retard because sometime has some little raccoons at their house after running over mama raccoon. They have a reasonable amount of information to be concerned that the guy has the gun on him.
Ramairthree, despite thinking loudmouth is a fuktard, and him and the indecisive guys not exactly being primary assault in a Ranger platoon strike force or DA ODA material,
Is sitting on a jury,
and he does not feel they had gotten together and planned, on the way, for the hell of it, to just start plugging people when they got there.
He would also think it was likely the guy had the gun on him.
They had not planned to snatch him in the hallway as he left the room. I don’t know how they have trained, ever,together at all, doing anything. They were winging it. They got the chick, were stumbling along without loving it when a plan comes together, and then shooter thought the guy was going for a gun.
They did not do a standard approach to this problem, which per the LEO responses here verify as a couple of very similar approaches surprisingly also employed by otherwise assumed baby eating, seal clubbing, puppy choking military guys who actually have a few dozen indig commands memorized for handling people in case we forgot to make everyone into corpses,
Because they did not catch on they were in that very common, easy to handle problem. Rolling up the savages. They did not just flow into rolling up the savages mode, because they were in on way to call out the savages mode, turned into snatch the savages as they leave mode, not realizing they had skipped right into easy roll up the savages part of the deal. And they horribly flubbed that very basic process.
Flubbing that process meant there was a lot of time and opportunity for the soon to be dead guy to do something that would get him killed. The process done right minimizes that time and opportunity. I personally look at it as minimizing the time and opportunity time for them to do something that will get me or one of us killed, but I think you get the point.
They could have been rolled up within seconds of contact.
Shooter thought the guy was going for a gun.
Shooter may be a tool with stupid crap on his gun, having wet dreams of being a SEAL even if he could not make it through just plain Navy basic training, that thinks he is an Operator because he went to a shooting class instructed by one on a weekend, with obnoxious sleeve tats, that you think is a worthless, child buggering, slave owning, soulless POS for the cold blooded murder of the poor, drunk, scared kid. But he was covering the guy and what was he covering the guy for? What was his job? His job was to not let the guy pull a gun, etc. He did his job.
But it turns out he was wrong. The guy was not going for a gun.
I would not vote to convict him of murder. I get the same vote on a jury as any other citizen here. Right or wrong.
I’m not glad the kid is dead. I have a seething disdain for loud mouth. I feel bad for the shooter. He killed someone that didn’t have it coming. But when he pulled the trigger he thought he had it coming. I am disappointed the rest of the guys did not click and get it sorted out despite loudmouth screwing everything up like they managed to do for the chick.
3-
Those of you that are the most self righteous and indignant regarding this, I would genuinely like to know-
If dead guy had ended up having a gun there,
I understand if you still hate loud mouth, and wish the other guys had got him rolled up first, etc. but
Would you still feel the way you do about the shooter?
There seems to be a lot of symphathy for the poor drunk, confused guy that did something stupid and ended up dead even though he was trying his best and was not responsible for his actions. He was too drunk to realize waving a pellet gun that looks like a gun out his window could have such consequences.
I ask you, if he left before the police arrived, hopped in his truck, driving along doing his best all confused by the traffic and T boned your wife and kids and killed them, too drunk to realize driving could have such consequences, how vehemently would you be defending him?
For the record, I feel bad for the kid and his family. I think the op was a total shit show and loud mouth is FUBAR.
I think I am pretty much on board with everyone else on that.
Where I seem to be way off the reservation compared to everyone else is,
If I saw a car weaving down the private road to where I live with the driver waving a gun out the window, see him turn and weave down my driveway, with his arm back in the car, then hop out of the car empty handed, not stop and keep his hands up when told, and then he reaches for the small of his back, I would clearly feel he is reaching for that gun, fear for my life, and shoot him.
The consensus seems to be I am some thug who can’t get OIF/OEF/HOA and various other CZ/HDZ ROE out of my system and there is no place for a murderer like me here in the US.
I otherwise genuinely like reading and learning from many of the posts in this thread, but I don’t like that part.
Since when do you have to be "in the bidness" to comment on these sort of things? Police are public servants and would do well to remember they are beholden to the people they swore to protect and serve and not just to their "brotherhood."
^^^ let's not go there... it's just going to get a lock.
Everybody has their style and opinion and no one has been prevented from expressing how they feel about the topic.
All I can say is I've been permanently scarred and have incurred injury to keep from having to kill people that I would have gotten No Billed on.
People can disagree with that but I have no regrets.
It's a contact sport.
FWIW I would suck as an army guy. I admit this. Not because I am above it but I just would.
Now that I know it is two separate people I will say trigger man is no angel but Mr. Mouth bears more onus.
Per quick reaction, BTDT not fun not pretty but this is where experience and holding it together comes in.
I cannot remember the name of the case (I bet 26 inf does or T2C) about an officer, alone, responding to a prowling call after dark. He attempts to identify subject and it is an adult male holding what appears to be a gun. Subject does not respond to verbal commands and makes a "furtive gesture". The officer fires and mortally wounds him.
Turns out he was the retarded adult child of a neighbor who thought the officer was playing guns.All he had was a toy squirt gun.
By Graham v. Connor, the Officer did everything right. Announced presence, gave clear verbal commands, and reacted only when acted upon by a standing adult.
It was an u fortunate mishap but technically the officer did nothing wrong.
He only knew what he knew. He did not find out the subject was mentally five years old until afterwards.
Ramairthree, where you are missing the boat I believe is that they had him. They had the subject proned out and should have just left him prone with palms up like every other officer does a felony arrest.
To his moderate credit, the shooting officer reacted upon what could have been construed as an order from the loudmouth Sergeant.
The Sergeant precipitated the shooting by giving some very odd verbal commands placing him in a position where he, the subject, was placed in greater risk.
This is beyond poor judgement.
In LE, you can go to a dispatch call as vague as "couple arguing" and arrive to a homicide or end up in a fight. Likewise you can get a call of "Armed man on premises in camouflage" and it turns out to be a guy picking up a friend to go shooting or hunting and soccer mom across street hyped it up.
You roll the dice.
You're trying to be technical, I appreciate this sincerely.
But...the question remains.
Had the subject been ordered to remain on ground until cuffed, would he have still been shot?
The answer is no. He was trying to comply.
Compare to the aforementioned scenario where the officer was being totally reactive. That was incumbent on subject who had diminished faculties.
The subject determines outcome.
Frome the video with the death threats and the trash talk, it seemed like the Sergeant was determining outcome.
We don't want to condemn our police to where they aren't effective, but they can't just overreact or precipitate something either.
That's like going up to a guy, calling him an MFer, and pushing him then when he swings on you, you beat his ass and charge him with felony assault on the police.
You cant do that. You cannot start something then hide behind the law.
A simple "Sir, stay proned until we restrain you and work this out" in a firm but neutral tone would have ended with no problems instead of "You will get shot. If you dont crawl or do the hokey pokey or blah blah blah".
The trigger man is nervous and got tunnel vision and again. The Sergeant precipitated it.
You couldnt really tell someone to fall on their face. He could break his nose or chip a tooth. You are responsible for anyone you have in custody.
This is like the guy who arrested the nurse just for telling them the policy and the guy arrested her. That was pure ego.
Same as here. Sargeypoo wanted to be Road Dog and act out a bad cop movie and ended up with bad results.
I've covered people with sidearm, SMG, M14, and shotgun before and never have I seen the dumb shit that sergeant was trying to do. And that was reckless. I dunno how court went down but a professional witness in felony arrest technique could have burst that bubble easy.
But then maybe I am colored by my background
From what I can see in that video I don’t see a justified shoot there. There is no weapon present and unless they found one I’m not sure what his crime is. Also the officers commands were a little counter intuitive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, that just looked bad. If that was a civie / civie shoot it would have probably been judged a bad shoot. The officer in question needs a lot of training in making sure directions are clear and calm, not everyone (especially innocent folks) understand what cops are wanting, they are heavily stressed and easily confused. I can think of a few hundred experienced LEOs who could have gotten that kid out of their alive without any undue risk to themselves or other officers.
Not sure what was in that guys head, but from the start it felt like he wasn't 100% sure of what he was doing and tried to compensate for that lack of calm control with aggression and intimidation. I'm pretty good with dealing with LEOs coming into contact while I'm armed and I know what they want to know and I know the words they want to hear and the body language they want to see. But even then from time to time, it's easy to lose a game of "Simon says..." and thankfully the mostly calm officers in my interactions stopped me, reminded me how they wanted me to do something and worked through my correction to the final conclusion of the encounter.
Not everyone is suited to be a LEO, not every LEO is suited for a long term career as a LEO. Anything goes wrong and things start from the premise that YOU screwed it up. So every encounter has that hanging over it's head, not to mention that the "calm, peaceable acting" individual might flip a switch with no warning and start taking souls before you can process past "WTF!!!!"
The job is a tall order and LEOs are only as good as the pool of fallible human beings they have to choose from. Hate to say it but a lot of the "really good cops" I know are trying to quietly finish out their years to retirement or have taken their experience to some more rewarding career.
RobertTheTexan
12-13-17, 03:06
The only opinions that matter (are informed through education and experience) in this are those of educated professionals (lawyers, LEOs, etc.) or someone with the titular 'Justice', as in, 'Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg'.
I
“The only opinions that matter are those opinions that I say matter.” LEO’s and Lawyers. Maybe we should acronymize that?
Thanks for clearing that up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
noonesshowmonkey
12-13-17, 05:41
I forget sometimes that education, subject matter expertise, and experience in a career field are not prerequisites for participating in a debate when on the internet, Robert. Thanks for the reminder.
Y'all can have it.
The Shaver story is now reaching the mainstream media, saw the interview with the widow last night. Lots of details that we read here were of course left out of the 60 second or so jib jab. The widow gave the grieving wife/mother of their children interview, but i wonder what her thoughts were of the hooker in the room with her drunk husband or vice versa.
RobertTheTexan
12-13-17, 06:51
I forget sometimes that education, subject matter expertise, and experience in a career field are not prerequisites for participating in a debate when on the internet, Robert. Thanks for the reminder.
Y'all can have it.
Hear me out before you pop smoke.
I don’t think “we” want it all to ourselves.
The OP asked two questions.
1) About SOP.
I agree a non-LEO should shut their pie-hole here since we have no idea about PD Tactical SOP.
2) The latter question I thought was geared towards the masses. The laypeople. The uneducated. The Roberts’, the Chuckmans’ the CPM’s
Without trying to sound cheesy, it takes two to make the seesaw work at the playground.
This was my point.
And if I’ve missed his point I stand corrected.
From the OP
1)
What's the SOP for that with that PD? Maybe they wanted to get him away from the door opening to reduce the chances of someone popping out? I'd like to here the LE POV on that.
2)
As ugly as that is to watch, all the factors involved, I can see how it would be viewed as a justified shooting, but from my non professional POV, a very thin line there...the officer was charged and fired, but was found not guilty. What say you?
So you shouldn’t pop smoke, but neither should the others.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I forget sometimes that education, subject matter expertise, and experience in a career field are not prerequisites for participating in a debate when on the internet, Robert. Thanks for the reminder.
Y'all can have it.
I am trying to figure your motivation: You come on, flaunt your creds (valid), and tell the unwashed masses they cannot have an opinion because they have no skin in the game? Then you get butt hurt when you are called out on it?
You mention prerequisites for having a debate; lest you forget, debates go two ways.
I appreciated your insight, but c'mon, man.....
The Shaver story is now reaching the mainstream media, saw the interview with the widow last night. Lots of details that we read here were of course left out of the 60 second or so jib jab. The widow gave the grieving wife/mother of their children interview, but i wonder what her thoughts were of the hooker in the room with her drunk husband or vice versa.
To me, just me, I would find it irrelevant that he was whoring around. I wouldnt have liked it but at least he would be alive. He might be getting divorced but would still be alive. He might be seeing a marriage counselor and catching some STD tests but would still be alive.
Even if this would have tainted their marriage, their kids would still have their father. And even if a marriage ends, you dont have to hate them.
No, I think this is different from the whole (and played out) "Dindu nuffin" because aside from screwing around on his wife and showing off a pellet gun, what did he really do?
militarymoron
12-13-17, 08:15
If I saw a car weaving down the private road to where I live with the driver waving a gun out the window, see him turn and weave down my driveway, with his arm back in the car, then hop out of the car empty handed, not stop and keep his hands up when told, and then he reaches for the small of his back, I would clearly feel he is reaching for that gun, fear for my life, and shoot him.
If the guy is standing up, looking straight at you, walking towards you, I can see that. But would you still shoot him if he was on his hands and knees, head down, not looking at you, and has attempted to follow all your instructions up until then?
I think any unarmed civilian who doesn't want to get shot by the police has a dog in this fight and should be free to express their opinion here; not just LE/lawyers. You don't have to be educated, an SME, or work in the field to have a logical, reasoned and intelligent discussion.
I forget sometimes that education, subject matter expertise, and experience in a career field are not prerequisites for participating in a debate when on the internet, Robert. Thanks for the reminder.
Y'all can have it.
You shouldn't bail.
One, some people have more experience that can add insight germane to your everyday tasks. "Gee, I dont want to end up like that Mesa guy"
Two, Be very careful about claiming expertise in a LE capacity. Thats a goat you dont want to rope. Unless the State and Court declares you an expert (in writing); you aren't an expert. (And dont want to be, really)
Education is something that can be shared. The state lawbook doesnt get taught in high school. Most people really dont even know just how many laws there really are.
And law books get thicker each year, not thinner.
Dont get sucked in the "Us vs Them"
To me, just me, I would find it irrelevant that he was whoring around. I wouldnt have liked it but at least he would be alive. He might be getting divorced but would still be alive. He might be seeing a marriage counselor and catching some STD tests but would still be alive.
Even if this would have tainted their marriage, their kids would still have their father. And even if a marriage ends, you dont have to hate them.
Whoring around didn't need to get him killed. What would have happened had he been peacefully arrested, put in the local jail and the wife found out who he was with? I don't hate them.
Whiskey_Bravo
12-13-17, 08:58
I forget sometimes that education, subject matter expertise, and experience in a career field are not prerequisites for participating in a debate when on the internet, Robert. Thanks for the reminder.
Y'all can have it.
There have been a few post after this one asking you not to leave the discussion. My opinion? With the above attitude that only a select few can "debate" something like this......Well Bye.
Whoring around didn't need to get him killed. What would have happened had he been peacefully arrested, put in the local jail and the wife found out who he was with? I don't hate them.
Thats a question for the officers.
Why wasn't he peacefully arrested? He wasn't combative. He was crying and begging and could have ever so easily been left prone and handcuffed.
I imagine the wife would at least have someone to be mad at. Now he's in the boneyard.
I've seen marriages weather heavy debt and the Clap and others fall apart over not getting a new car and over the toilet seat.
But he's dead and now she gets to experience being a widow.
You shouldn't bail.
All good points per usual, but if he feels he's the only one with valid points to make here, then bail he should. Officer.com and others are good sites (I'm a member and occasional poster at O.com) where LE can talk to LE and anyone else sits on the sidelines for the most part RE anything LE related.
Why has no one mentioned that when his hand came back around you could clearly see it was empty BEFORE the first shot went? You could also see that he wasn't even looking at the officers. He was shot in the top of his head.
I've arrested a number of uncooperative subjects over the years and investigated a few LEO involved shootings. If the suspect moved his hands to a location out of sight of the officers, then had a wallet, pair of sunglasses or anything else in his hand leading the officer to believe he had a weapon, the shooting would have been justified. I am uncomfortable with the jury ruling in this particular case based solely on review of the video and available open source information. "I thought he could've/might've been reaching for a weapon" won't cut it. As far as the subject being drunk, slow witted, etc., the Sgt. giving verbal commands or the woman being present, none of those factors play a role in justification of the application of deadly force. I would relish the opportunity to review the testimony of the shooter and other officers on scene when the shooting occurred.
I was asked by a respected criminal defense attorney "based solely on the video, in what condition would the suspect been if he was arrested by old school, hands on, street cops?" I responded "he would have been scuffed up a bit." The attorney replied that other LEO told him for the past 20+ years the trend in our area has been to avoid hiring personnel who were willing to go hands on with uncooperative subjects, so departments could avoid complaints. He also told me that if he was defending the shooter in this case there was no way on earth he would want any experienced LEO seated on the jury.
If a suspect produces a weapon, a LEO has to move from one end to the other of the Use of Force Continuum in a split second. It seems like the current trend is to immediately move from the bottom to the top of the Use of Force Continuum against empty hand subjects who are not in physical contact with LEO. That makes it tough for thousands of good LEO who are doing the job right every day.
(Disclaimers-
I was not a starting team, varsity squad Operator. I have not done OTC, SFARTEC, etc.
I was not LE, have no LE training, have never done a ride along, don’t watch COPs, etc.
I have been on a number of night , and handful of day, objectives - some of which invoked casualties- within this environment.)
I would like to address
1- why it may appear he decided to shoot they when he was waving at him with an empty hand after scratching his ass instead of when he thought he was reaching for a gun,
2- Why the opinions being offered that military SOF guys just kill everything left and right, and could have no valid opinion of what occurred, are inherently wrong, etc. is not entirely correct, and present an opinion from that mindset. Doesn’t mean its right. But seek first to understand. And even if you vehemently disagree, why those opinions matter.
3- have two questions I would genuinely like to have people address.
1-
Probably because up close and personal in real time he was pulling the trigger when he realized the hand was going back and thought he was going for the gun, instead of viewing from the comfort of his couch on his laptop. Why don’t you have a buddy pull out a pact timer and act it out and see how that works? Not being sarcastic. How reasonable is it based on those times he started to react with hand going back but rounds impacting as hand coming forward?
Shooting people from far away is the sweet science of Issac Newton and the math all works and it’s classic physics.
Up close and personal and people squirting in all directions and popping out and you think you heard a meow, is there really a cat in the box, but if you wait and look it might not be there but your’re dead, Quantum shit, and it’s impossible per the Internet you actually could hit anyone in the day time with your Eotech, because you zeroed it at night, but you did, but you just use your PEQ mostly at night, and holy shit there really is a cat running along that wall, Peter Gabriel video shit.
2-
It sucks a young guy got drunk, did stupid shit, was jacked around by an assclown,
And then got shot reaching behind his back. But they did not randomly just go looking for someone to shoot. It did not get real in the middle of telling him to quit skateboarding on the stair rail or they were called because he was smoking in a no smoking room.
Like it or not, I am a fellow citizen that could be sitting on a jury. You guys act like military shows no restraint and nothing about that applies, etc. I get it. Cops aren’t with two dozen people they know and seconds later ten are dead or expectant, some more are trying to die a little slower, and most of the rest will also be needing surgery. Your mistakes, and civilians in self defense here, may be under a little more scrutiny.
But On K/Cs some people actually get captured instead of killed. And there are often a bunch of women and kids to sort out on the objective and we don’t tend to leave them in a pile of bodies. I have seen more restraint than this, and I have seen less.
What I think went down from a tactics perspective.
A bunch of LEOs that are supposed to do a million different things perfect with minimal entrance standards, no significant assessment, indoc, or selection process, and limited training rolled on a TST with on the go planning because-
They were told a guy was out on his balcony waving a gun around, or was seen waving a pistol out his window- or something along those lines.
On the way to their call out or breach, or whatever monkeyfuk of amateur hour event they actually planned to do, that is seen in the vast majority of these videos,
Their ki got thrown way off by the guy just be bopping out of his room with a chick. There were no longer on the way to do what they planned.
Loudmouth assclown was thrown trying to figure out what to do and sound all professional and bad ass instead of clueless and discombobulated. Cover guy was doing his job. The others seemed a little hesitant, indecisive, etc. but managed to roll up the chick. The guy had told them no one else was in the room he just left, where a man had been seen waving a gun around out the window.
He seem scared, confused, unpredictable, and not acting right- which could mean something as harmless as life is not going on as planned for corky and he is just consfused and scared, or dudes like this can actually be dangerous in close quarters.
It’s not like they are the EPA swat team going full retard because sometime has some little raccoons at their house after running over mama raccoon. They have a reasonable amount of information to be concerned that the guy has the gun on him.
Ramairthree, despite thinking loudmouth is a fuktard, and him and the indecisive guys not exactly being primary assault in a Ranger platoon strike force or DA ODA material,
Is sitting on a jury,
and he does not feel they had gotten together and planned, on the way, for the hell of it, to just start plugging people when they got there.
He would also think it was likely the guy had the gun on him.
They had not planned to snatch him in the hallway as he left the room. I don’t know how they have trained, ever,together at all, doing anything. They were winging it. They got the chick, were stumbling along without loving it when a plan comes together, and then shooter thought the guy was going for a gun.
They did not do a standard approach to this problem, which per the LEO responses here verify as a couple of very similar approaches surprisingly also employed by otherwise assumed baby eating, seal clubbing, puppy choking military guys who actually have a few dozen indig commands memorized for handling people in case we forgot to make everyone into corpses,
Because they did not catch on they were in that very common, easy to handle problem. Rolling up the savages. They did not just flow into rolling up the savages mode, because they were in on way to call out the savages mode, turned into snatch the savages as they leave mode, not realizing they had skipped right into easy roll up the savages part of the deal. And they horribly flubbed that very basic process.
Flubbing that process meant there was a lot of time and opportunity for the soon to be dead guy to do something that would get him killed. The process done right minimizes that time and opportunity. I personally look at it as minimizing the time and opportunity time for them to do something that will get me or one of us killed, but I think you get the point.
They could have been rolled up within seconds of contact.
Shooter thought the guy was going for a gun.
Shooter may be a tool with stupid crap on his gun, having wet dreams of being a SEAL even if he could not make it through just plain Navy basic training, that thinks he is an Operator because he went to a shooting class instructed by one on a weekend, with obnoxious sleeve tats, that you think is a worthless, child buggering, slave owning, soulless POS for the cold blooded murder of the poor, drunk, scared kid. But he was covering the guy and what was he covering the guy for? What was his job? His job was to not let the guy pull a gun, etc. He did his job.
But it turns out he was wrong. The guy was not going for a gun.
I would not vote to convict him of murder. I get the same vote on a jury as any other citizen here. Right or wrong.
I’m not glad the kid is dead. I have a seething disdain for loud mouth. I feel bad for the shooter. He killed someone that didn’t have it coming. But when he pulled the trigger he thought he had it coming. I am disappointed the rest of the guys did not click and get it sorted out despite loudmouth screwing everything up like they managed to do for the chick.
3-
Those of you that are the most self righteous and indignant regarding this, I would genuinely like to know-
If dead guy had ended up having a gun there,
I understand if you still hate loud mouth, and wish the other guys had got him rolled up first, etc. but
Would you still feel the way you do about the shooter?
There seems to be a lot of symphathy for the poor drunk, confused guy that did something stupid and ended up dead even though he was trying his best and was not responsible for his actions. He was too drunk to realize waving a pellet gun that looks like a gun out his window could have such consequences.
I ask you, if he left before the police arrived, hopped in his truck, driving along doing his best all confused by the traffic and T boned your wife and kids and killed them, too drunk to realize driving could have such consequences, how vehemently would you be defending him?
For the record, I feel bad for the kid and his family. I think the op was a total shit show and loud mouth is FUBAR.
I think I am pretty much on board with everyone else on that.
Where I seem to be way off the reservation compared to everyone else is,
If I saw a car weaving down the private road to where I live with the driver waving a gun out the window, see him turn and weave down my driveway, with his arm back in the car, then hop out of the car empty handed, not stop and keep his hands up when told, and then he reaches for the small of his back, I would clearly feel he is reaching for that gun, fear for my life, and shoot him.
The consensus seems to be I am some thug who can’t get OIF/OEF/HOA and various other CZ/HDZ ROE out of my system and there is no place for a murderer like me here in the US.
I otherwise genuinely like reading and learning from many of the posts in this thread, but I don’t like that part.
Two points, has it been proven that he was waving the pellet gun out the window? Or was he merely seen through the window with the pellet gun? Keep in mind that the fact it was a pellet gun has no bearing whatsoever, but out the window is menacing, while through the window is a legal activity unless you're directly pointing it at someone.
Second, I'll readily admit that my LE training is outdated by now. But when I went through critical skills training, your decision to shoot was a pass when you confirmed a threat existed before/as you pulled the trigger, and it was a fail if you pulled the trigger before then. Whether it turned out the "perp" was pulling a weapon or not, the results were the same. That's important because you encounter people who for whatever reason, don't follow commands properly on a fairly frequent basis. If we shot every one of them who reached into their pocket or put their hand(s) behind them when it was monumentally stupid to do so, we'd have an exponentially greater number of dead innocent citizens than we do now.
I'm also taking the totality of the circumstances into account here. This wasn't Ofc. Fraidy Cat in a dark alley, working a MWAG call all by himself. This was an officer in a hallway full of officers pointed in on a mostly compliant subject who'd already been proned out, and would've remained proned out if not instructed otherwise.
We've already beaten the dead horse of their utterly awful tactics and lack of scene control. But their failure to properly control the subject and subsequent shooting of him when he couldn't comply, BEFORE confirming that there was indeed a threat of death or great bodily harm, is the basis for my belief that this was manslaughter. Do I think his accoutrements and mindset made him more likely to overreact? Yes. But even if the jury never saw the port cover, his tats or any other item he possessed on that night, the jury still had ample evidence of manslaughter and they elected to not find him guilty of that charge. That's their call but had I been on that jury, it would've resulted in manslaughter or a hung jury.
I also think the Sgt. should bear the onus of this debacle. He should not be enjoying his retirement check in the PI with no repercussions. That's just my opinion, but it is backed by more than just emotion and speculation.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.