Mesa officer cleared in shooting
- Thread starter Chris0nllyn
- Start date
WALSH: Police Murdered This Unarmed Man, But The Media Doesn't Care Because He's White
Brailsford was called to a hotel in Mesa back in January of 2016 on reports that someone had been pointing a rifle out of a window. Daniel Shaver, very drunk at the time, had apparently been messing around with a few pellet guns that he used in his pest control job. Exceedingly stupid behavior on his part, but not deserving of the death penalty. Still, Brailsford and the other responding officers could not have known that they were pellet guns, so it's understandable that they were on edge.
But this is where it gets not-so-understandable. Shaver emerges stumbling out of his hotel room. He's told to get on the ground, and he immediately complies. Shaver attempts to follow every instruction shouted at him, but he has difficulty because the instructions make no sense. Here's a verbatim transcript of everything Brailsford told Shaver to do, as he pointed his rifle at him and threatened repeatedly to kill him: "lie on the ground," "put both hands on top of your head and interlace your fingers," "take your feet and cross your left foot over your right foot," "keep your feet crossed," "put both hands flat in front of you" (while they're on his head and interlaced?), "push yourself to a kneeling position" (have you ever tried to push yourself up while your arms are extended all the way in front of you?), "put both hands in the air," "crawl towards me" (with his hands in the air?), "stop," "crawl," "keep your legs crossed" (while crawling?), "put your hands in the air," "keep your legs crossed," "crawl" (so he's supposed to crawl again with his hands in the air and his legs crossed). In the midst of this flurry of hysterical, arbitrary commands, as Brailsford continually reminds Shaver that he'll die if he "makes a mistake," Shaver cries and begs for his life.
Then comes the fatal moment. As Shaver crawls, awkwardly and wobbly, trying to keep up with this deadly game of Simon Says, his pants begin to fall down. He reaches to pull them up and Brailsford immediately sprays him with bullets. Shaver followed his ridiculous instructions for five minutes and still wound up dead.
Of course, Brailsford's defense was that Shaver reached for his waistband. Fine. But what was he worried about? That Shaver would pull a rifle from his basketball shorts? And even if he did have a gun, how was he going to pull it out and get off a shot from the crawling position? And what had Shaver done during this interaction to at all suggest that he was a threat? He was emphatically attempting to comply with every command. And why didn't Brailsford just walk over, while the man was laying prostrate on the ground, and cuff him? The officers on the scene had ample opportunity to detain Shaver without firing a shot. Instead they chose to have him dance around like a trained monkey. And the monkey died because he didn't want to dance with his shorts around his ankles.
By the way, anyone who would think of defending the cops here, try this: lie on the ground, interlace your fingers, put your hands out in front of you, cross your legs, and crawl with your hands in the air. Now imagining attempting this same act of contortion with police officers pointing rifles at you and a guy shouting that he'll kill you if you mess up. Now imagine all of that, but you've had a few beers. Do you think you would have gotten out of this alive?
Brailsford was called to a hotel in Mesa back in January of 2016 on reports that someone had been pointing a rifle out of a window. Daniel Shaver, very drunk at the time, had apparently been messing around with a few pellet guns that he used in his pest control job. Exceedingly stupid behavior on his part, but not deserving of the death penalty. Still, Brailsford and the other responding officers could not have known that they were pellet guns, so it's understandable that they were on edge.
But this is where it gets not-so-understandable. Shaver emerges stumbling out of his hotel room. He's told to get on the ground, and he immediately complies. Shaver attempts to follow every instruction shouted at him, but he has difficulty because the instructions make no sense. Here's a verbatim transcript of everything Brailsford told Shaver to do, as he pointed his rifle at him and threatened repeatedly to kill him: "lie on the ground," "put both hands on top of your head and interlace your fingers," "take your feet and cross your left foot over your right foot," "keep your feet crossed," "put both hands flat in front of you" (while they're on his head and interlaced?), "push yourself to a kneeling position" (have you ever tried to push yourself up while your arms are extended all the way in front of you?), "put both hands in the air," "crawl towards me" (with his hands in the air?), "stop," "crawl," "keep your legs crossed" (while crawling?), "put your hands in the air," "keep your legs crossed," "crawl" (so he's supposed to crawl again with his hands in the air and his legs crossed). In the midst of this flurry of hysterical, arbitrary commands, as Brailsford continually reminds Shaver that he'll die if he "makes a mistake," Shaver cries and begs for his life.
Then comes the fatal moment. As Shaver crawls, awkwardly and wobbly, trying to keep up with this deadly game of Simon Says, his pants begin to fall down. He reaches to pull them up and Brailsford immediately sprays him with bullets. Shaver followed his ridiculous instructions for five minutes and still wound up dead.
Of course, Brailsford's defense was that Shaver reached for his waistband. Fine. But what was he worried about? That Shaver would pull a rifle from his basketball shorts? And even if he did have a gun, how was he going to pull it out and get off a shot from the crawling position? And what had Shaver done during this interaction to at all suggest that he was a threat? He was emphatically attempting to comply with every command. And why didn't Brailsford just walk over, while the man was laying prostrate on the ground, and cuff him? The officers on the scene had ample opportunity to detain Shaver without firing a shot. Instead they chose to have him dance around like a trained monkey. And the monkey died because he didn't want to dance with his shorts around his ankles.
By the way, anyone who would think of defending the cops here, try this: lie on the ground, interlace your fingers, put your hands out in front of you, cross your legs, and crawl with your hands in the air. Now imagining attempting this same act of contortion with police officers pointing rifles at you and a guy shouting that he'll kill you if you mess up. Now imagine all of that, but you've had a few beers. Do you think you would have gotten out of this alive?
Watching the video, the police had ample opportunity to neutralize this kid when he was face down. They could have sent another officer to come around the back of him while he was prone.
They need to review their SOP if this is how it's going to go down in the future. Either way the city will pay big time for this unfortunate event.
They need to review their SOP if this is how it's going to go down in the future. Either way the city will pay big time for this unfortunate event.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately pay does not bring him back to life.
Some police officers are not in possession of the proper qualities of common sense and courage for the job they perform.
They do ok writing speeding tickets but when the SHTF they just don't have it.
Yea, i think they should have cuffed him when he was prone.
Did anyone see where the jury explained why they found this cop not guilty? This seems like a clear case of excessive force, and man...I gotta tell you...looks like at least manslaughter to me. I'm curious why the jury didn't see it that way.
The Kate Steinle murder, one of the alternate jurors was on some Fox talk show and explained why that jury didn't find her killer guilty of even manslaughter. It was some ticky bull#### thing that I don't recall, but it was basically that the prosecution focused on the killer "brandishing" the weapon, where there was no evidence that he did any such thing. I'm wondering if it's some similar ticky bull#### that prevented this jury from allowing the Shaver family justice.
The Kate Steinle murder, one of the alternate jurors was on some Fox talk show and explained why that jury didn't find her killer guilty of even manslaughter. It was some ticky bull#### thing that I don't recall, but it was basically that the prosecution focused on the killer "brandishing" the weapon, where there was no evidence that he did any such thing. I'm wondering if it's some similar ticky bull#### that prevented this jury from allowing the Shaver family justice.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Basically, the same old song and dance. "Training", "split second decision making", and victim blaiming.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...sa-police-officer-set-begin-monday/770345001/
In all fairness, the guy was chit drunk and playing with a gun. Ideally he'd have kept his hands where he was supposed to, everything gets cleared up, no problem. But watching the video, even I - and you know I typically want to side with the cops if I can - see that the situation should have been handled differently. The news tards are making a big deal out of Shaver crying and begging not to be shot, but they all do that - I don't take that into consideration.
So if the cop supposedly didn't do anything wrong, why was he fired?
I would definitely call this incident "unsatisfactory performance".
Here's the Wiki, which gives you the whole thing instead of the bits and pieces the reporters tax their third grade education providing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Daniel_Shaver
In my mind, after watching the video, it's clear that those cops were ####ing with him and threatening him for sport. They were looking for an excuse to shoot. I'm surprised the jury didn't see it that way.
"Matt, I am a long time reader but no longer. If you have never been in their shoes, you have no place criticizing police officers who are doing a very difficult and thankless job."
"I have read my last Matt Walsh article. Your slanderous attacks on law enforcement officers are shameful. They do a very dangerous job as best they can. You should be embarrassed."
"Do you think police should just offer themselves up to be killed? The officers in the Daniel Shaver case couldn't take any chances. If you don't comply, they shoot. It's that simple."
I want to respond to each of these objections because they seem to be representative of much of the feedback I've seen over the past couple of days:
First, I absolutely reject the notion that an American citizen should not criticize agents of the state unless he is also an agent of the state. Not only do I reject it, but I find it pitiful, gross, and profoundly un-American. I do not need to "walk in the shoes" of law enforcement to know that law enforcement ought not shoot unarmed men who pose no discernible threat to them. I have both a right to point this out and a duty. These are public servants. We pay their salaries. We must give them room to do their jobs, but we don't give them carte blanche. And, in the end, they should answer to us. They work for the government and the government works for us. That's how it's supposed to be. That's certainly the "conservative" point of view, anyway.
Second, I know they do a dangerous job. But we expect them to do it well. If they are not able to do it well, they should find a different job. "Yeah these cops were incompetent but being competent is hard." Sorry, not good enough. You wouldn't shrug your shoulders and just accept the consequences if a surgeon botched a routine operation and your child ended up dead because of it. You wouldn't defend an airline captain who panicked at a bit of turbulence and accidentally plunged his aircraft into the Atlantic. Yes, being a surgeon is hard. Being an airline captain is hard. That's why we need extremely qualified and well trained people in those positions. Someone who accepts a difficult job, despite lacking the ability to perform the duties it requires, ought to face the consequences when his inevitable failures lead to catastrophe.
Third, I don't accept this idea that police officers "can't take any chances." If you don't want to take any chances, don't become a police officer. We shouldn't require them to take unreasonable chances, but the officers who responded to Daniel Shaver were not being asked to take an unreasonable chance. Shaver was literally crawling on the ground in submission. The chance was exceedingly slight that he would suddenly pull a gun out of his basketball shorts and fire a shot at police officers who have AR-15s trained on him from 10 yards away. But these officers would sooner kill an innocent man than take a very slight chance with their own lives. That is not acceptable.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/24537/shaver-matt-walsh
"I have read my last Matt Walsh article. Your slanderous attacks on law enforcement officers are shameful. They do a very dangerous job as best they can. You should be embarrassed."
"Do you think police should just offer themselves up to be killed? The officers in the Daniel Shaver case couldn't take any chances. If you don't comply, they shoot. It's that simple."
I want to respond to each of these objections because they seem to be representative of much of the feedback I've seen over the past couple of days:
First, I absolutely reject the notion that an American citizen should not criticize agents of the state unless he is also an agent of the state. Not only do I reject it, but I find it pitiful, gross, and profoundly un-American. I do not need to "walk in the shoes" of law enforcement to know that law enforcement ought not shoot unarmed men who pose no discernible threat to them. I have both a right to point this out and a duty. These are public servants. We pay their salaries. We must give them room to do their jobs, but we don't give them carte blanche. And, in the end, they should answer to us. They work for the government and the government works for us. That's how it's supposed to be. That's certainly the "conservative" point of view, anyway.
Second, I know they do a dangerous job. But we expect them to do it well. If they are not able to do it well, they should find a different job. "Yeah these cops were incompetent but being competent is hard." Sorry, not good enough. You wouldn't shrug your shoulders and just accept the consequences if a surgeon botched a routine operation and your child ended up dead because of it. You wouldn't defend an airline captain who panicked at a bit of turbulence and accidentally plunged his aircraft into the Atlantic. Yes, being a surgeon is hard. Being an airline captain is hard. That's why we need extremely qualified and well trained people in those positions. Someone who accepts a difficult job, despite lacking the ability to perform the duties it requires, ought to face the consequences when his inevitable failures lead to catastrophe.
Third, I don't accept this idea that police officers "can't take any chances." If you don't want to take any chances, don't become a police officer. We shouldn't require them to take unreasonable chances, but the officers who responded to Daniel Shaver were not being asked to take an unreasonable chance. Shaver was literally crawling on the ground in submission. The chance was exceedingly slight that he would suddenly pull a gun out of his basketball shorts and fire a shot at police officers who have AR-15s trained on him from 10 yards away. But these officers would sooner kill an innocent man than take a very slight chance with their own lives. That is not acceptable.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/24537/shaver-matt-walsh
glhs837
Power with Control
Concur. Most of the agreement with the officers that I saw focused on the "He didn't comply and died, too bad. Don't wanna die, comply." I just don't get how what should be a simple "Lie flat, hands out flat on the floor. Cross your legs. Hands on the back of your head, fingers together. Now hold that position while the nice officer comes to cuff you".
Clear and simple, none of this simon says BS. I could see making him crawl out of a place of concealment like a bush or inside a doorway, but for effs sake, it's a freaking hotel hallway.
Clear and simple, none of this simon says BS. I could see making him crawl out of a place of concealment like a bush or inside a doorway, but for effs sake, it's a freaking hotel hallway.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
The Sgt. screwed up by barking the commands he did. It not only caused the suspect to become tense and not know wtf was going on (alcohol didn't help, but he was in his hotel room) but caused his officers to react to any slight movement. The officers were itching to pull the trigger.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
You have to ask yourself why they pulled the trigger.
Were they frightened or incompetent.
Or a little of each
This poor bastard was murdered. IMO
glhs837
Power with Control
Adrenaline plus the reinforced mindset that every citizen is a deranged perp ready to go full auto at any given second. Us vs Them.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Put yourself in the position of the officer. You're pointing at this guy, your sgt. is behind you yelling commands saying things like "If you don't do exactly what we say you will be shot", and the guy does some motion that sgt. didn't tell him to do. BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG
You're scared and full of adrenaline. Lucky for you, a completely subjective defense of "I feared for my life and the life of my fellow officers and training has taught me that people who make sudden movements to their pant line may be carrying a gun." is available.