(12-12-2017 06:57 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 06:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 06:28 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 05:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 04:57 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  You trot out your standard meaningless ad-hominem every time I post. You need to find some rational arguments one of these days.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Probably because all you ever trot out is "Cops bad" every time you post.

You've never posted what you would do different, never offered a solution, nothing.

Perhaps if you could use all your expertise in law enforcement procedures to tell us what could be logically done different then you'd get a different response.

But as long as you trot out the same old, same old you are going to get it in return.

You certainly characterize me and every post I make as "cops bad" and "cop hater".

That's because I disagree with you on police policy and training which makes you go apoplectic and foam at the mouth. Not because it is true.

In this case the first thing that I would suggest doing differently would be to not scream contradictory and confusing orders at people who are obviously attempting to comply while obviously scared out of their wits.

There were no confusing nor contradictory orders. Every order was explained slowly in an authoritative voice, not screamed. Shaver did not comply numerous times and was repeatedly told to only do what the officers told him to do. It was only as Shaver continued to take actions contrary to what was ordered that the officer began to scream.

Yeah, they were confusing and contradictory.

Bottom line is that a guy who should not be dead...who was not a danger...who was not attempting to be noncompliant....is dead.

That's a problem. That's a failure of the system.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

LOL

I suggest you watch the video again.

The orders were not confusing nor contradictory and Shaver was not complying.

(12-12-2017 07:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Clearly " face down, hands intertwined behind you head, legs crossed and don't you dare move or you're a dead mofo" and "get up and crawl" are the same.

A LOT of people would instinctually use their hands to push up when told to get up and naturally uncross their legs. After thinking to themselves "wtf, you just said don't move or you'll shoot me, *******".

They did not order him to do both actions back to back, and they had just successfully detained the female subject using the EXACT SAME INSTRUCTIONS using the exact same words in the exact same tone. Shaver didn't push up with his hands, he put them behind his back then when told to raise them he put them at his waist. You know...the area where most people carry concealed weapons.

Righteous shoot, correct ruling by the jury.

They orders may not seem confusing to the cop but they were clearly confusing to the person. Especially given the possibility that he was under the influence.

As I said, the biggest reason for the 'simon says' was that he repeatedly didn't follow them. He put his hands behind his back for a good 5 seconds after being told not to... he moved quickly when he should have moved slowly. He kept reacting before the instructions were complete...

The cop was trying to give him every benefit, until he was crawling forward and thus at his most dangerous and he reached for his back waistband AGAIN after specifically being told not to numerous times.

If he were under the influence, he should have said so when the cop asked.

(12-13-2017 01:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As I said, the biggest reason for the 'simon says' was that he repeatedly didn't follow them. He put his hands behind his back for a good 5 seconds after being told not to... he moved quickly when he should have moved slowly. He kept reacting before the instructions were complete...

The cop was trying to give him every benefit, until he was crawling forward and thus at his most dangerous and he reached for his back waistband AGAIN after specifically being told not to numerous times.

If he were under the influence, he should have said so when the cop asked.

I understand and agree with everything you said.

It's a shame he wasn't able to follow directions. It resulted in his death.

Once again however, we see the last moments of a video where the cops likely had no choice but to shoot to kill.

As I have said before, I often wonder what could have been done differently to prevent the cops from being put in that situation in the first place.

(12-13-2017 01:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 01:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As I said, the biggest reason for the 'simon says' was that he repeatedly didn't follow them. He put his hands behind his back for a good 5 seconds after being told not to... he moved quickly when he should have moved slowly. He kept reacting before the instructions were complete...

The cop was trying to give him every benefit, until he was crawling forward and thus at his most dangerous and he reached for his back waistband AGAIN after specifically being told not to numerous times.

If he were under the influence, he should have said so when the cop asked.

I understand and agree with everything you said.

It's a shame he wasn't able to follow directions. It resulted in his death.

Once again however, we see the last moments of a video where the cops likely had no choice but to shoot to kill.

As I have said before, I often wonder what could have been done differently to prevent the cops from being put in that situation in the first place.

That should be the takeaway. How do we prevent these situations. And I mean a realistic solution, not one where we ask officers to take unreasonable risks.

(12-13-2017 01:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 01:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 01:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As I said, the biggest reason for the 'simon says' was that he repeatedly didn't follow them. He put his hands behind his back for a good 5 seconds after being told not to... he moved quickly when he should have moved slowly. He kept reacting before the instructions were complete...

The cop was trying to give him every benefit, until he was crawling forward and thus at his most dangerous and he reached for his back waistband AGAIN after specifically being told not to numerous times.

If he were under the influence, he should have said so when the cop asked.

I understand and agree with everything you said.

It's a shame he wasn't able to follow directions. It resulted in his death.

Once again however, we see the last moments of a video where the cops likely had no choice but to shoot to kill.

As I have said before, I often wonder what could have been done differently to prevent the cops from being put in that situation in the first place.

That should be the takeaway. How do we prevent these situations. And I mean a realistic solution, not one where we ask officers to take unreasonable risks.

I rarely question it when a person is armed but I always have my issues when it turns out that the person was unarmed.

(12-13-2017 02:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 01:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 01:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 01:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As I said, the biggest reason for the 'simon says' was that he repeatedly didn't follow them. He put his hands behind his back for a good 5 seconds after being told not to... he moved quickly when he should have moved slowly. He kept reacting before the instructions were complete...

The cop was trying to give him every benefit, until he was crawling forward and thus at his most dangerous and he reached for his back waistband AGAIN after specifically being told not to numerous times.

If he were under the influence, he should have said so when the cop asked.

I understand and agree with everything you said.

It's a shame he wasn't able to follow directions. It resulted in his death.

Once again however, we see the last moments of a video where the cops likely had no choice but to shoot to kill.

As I have said before, I often wonder what could have been done differently to prevent the cops from being put in that situation in the first place.

That should be the takeaway. How do we prevent these situations. And I mean a realistic solution, not one where we ask officers to take unreasonable risks.

I rarely question it when a person is armed but I always have my issues when it turns out that the person was unarmed.

How about when you don’t know 1) whether the person is armed or not, or 2) whether there might be other people who are armed inside a room behind a door that is closed?

What you are saying is that we are going to judge you after the fact based upon information that you did not know at the time you acted. How is that fair or reasonable or just?

(12-13-2017 02:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  How about when you don’t know 1) whether the person is armed or not, or 2) whether there might be other people who are armed inside a room behind a door that is closed?

What you are saying is that we are going to judge you after the fact based upon information that you did not know at the time you acted. How is that fair or reasonable or just?

This


You're right Fit about these being opportunities to examine the process and I fully support that.

What all too often seems to happen though is that we judge actions based on information unavailable at the time... like whether or not he was armed.... or whether or not it was a bb gun.

Of course we don't know the specific training here, but generally first responders, even down to paramedics etc are trained to assume the worst, which is why even when there are signs indicating no issue, they are so careful in transporting injured players with even a CHANCE of spinal injury. Generally speaking I believe Cops are trained to assume the worst. ASSUME the reported gun is a real one... ASSUME the suspect is armed... ASSUME there is another shooter etc... because often enough, there is... and the failure to make that assumption risks civilian lives.

The way I see that event... the cop put civilian lives above his own, and his own above the suspect, though not like he didn't risk his own life cutting the guy slack. I don't think that's generally wrong. (and not implying you do)

(12-13-2017 02:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 02:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 01:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 01:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 01:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As I said, the biggest reason for the 'simon says' was that he repeatedly didn't follow them. He put his hands behind his back for a good 5 seconds after being told not to... he moved quickly when he should have moved slowly. He kept reacting before the instructions were complete...

The cop was trying to give him every benefit, until he was crawling forward and thus at his most dangerous and he reached for his back waistband AGAIN after specifically being told not to numerous times.

If he were under the influence, he should have said so when the cop asked.

I understand and agree with everything you said.

It's a shame he wasn't able to follow directions. It resulted in his death.

Once again however, we see the last moments of a video where the cops likely had no choice but to shoot to kill.

As I have said before, I often wonder what could have been done differently to prevent the cops from being put in that situation in the first place.

That should be the takeaway. How do we prevent these situations. And I mean a realistic solution, not one where we ask officers to take unreasonable risks.

I rarely question it when a person is armed but I always have my issues when it turns out that the person was unarmed.

How about when you don’t know 1) whether the person is armed or not, or 2) whether there might be other people who are armed inside a room behind a door that is closed?

What you are saying is that we are going to judge you after the fact based upon information that you did not know at the time you acted. How is that fair or reasonable or just?

I wasn't talking about this specific case. In this case, I think it was a matter of giving too many instructions to a person who was either under the influence or unable to process what he was being told.

I work in a school wit a bunch of special education students. I wouldn't be surprised if this kid was mentally challenged because he is acting exactly like some of my students when you ask them to do too many things at once.

(12-13-2017 03:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I wasn't talking about this specific case. In this case, I think it was a matter of giving too many instructions to a person who was either under the influence or unable to process what he was being told.
I work in a school wit a bunch of special education students. I wouldn't be surprised if this kid was mentally challenged because he is acting exactly like some of my students when you ask them to do too many things at once.

I don't have a problem believing that at all. So what should be done differently?

(12-13-2017 03:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 03:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I wasn't talking about this specific case. In this case, I think it was a matter of giving too many instructions to a person who was either under the influence or unable to process what he was being told.
I work in a school wit a bunch of special education students. I wouldn't be surprised if this kid was mentally challenged because he is acting exactly like some of my students when you ask them to do too many things at once.

I don't have a problem believing that at all. So what should be done differently?

I don't know if anything could be done differently.

Do cops have training on how to deal with someone who might be mentally challenged?

I ask this becuase I seem to recall another situation where a mentally challenged person was shot because they weren't responding to police orders.

What is the procedure for a cop if the person is not following orders but otherwise not reaching for a weapon.

For example, what if the person had simply frooze spread eagle and didn't move? I doubt the cops would have shot him.

(12-13-2017 03:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't know if anything could be done differently.
Do cops have training on how to deal with someone who might be mentally challenged?
I ask this becuase I seem to recall another situation where a mentally challenged person was shot because they weren't responding to police orders.
What is the procedure for a cop if the person is not following orders but otherwise not reaching for a weapon.
For example, what if the person had simply frooze spread eagle and didn't move? I doubt the cops would have shot him.

I doubt it as well. But that isn't what happened here.

(12-13-2017 03:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 03:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't know if anything could be done differently.
Do cops have training on how to deal with someone who might be mentally challenged?
I ask this becuase I seem to recall another situation where a mentally challenged person was shot because they weren't responding to police orders.
What is the procedure for a cop if the person is not following orders but otherwise not reaching for a weapon.
For example, what if the person had simply frooze spread eagle and didn't move? I doubt the cops would have shot him.

I doubt it as well. But that isn't what happened here.

No he put his hand behind his back more than once.

(12-13-2017 03:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  For example, what if the person had simply frooze spread eagle and didn't move? I doubt the cops would have shot him.

That was my thought as well.

I'd also think the woman would be saying something like that... he's mentally challenged etc... or heck, just 'he's really drunk'.

Had he said 'yes, I'm really drunk' and with his hands spread eagle or whatever said... 'I can't process all this'... I suspect the cops would have done something else.... PROBABLY they would have slowly approached him... one watching him, the other watching the corner... and ANYTHING that moved would have been shot dead. Then we might be talking about the dead person from the room next door who was just coming out to see what the heck all the noise was about.

NO solution is without risks.

Like you, I think I would have said (if I were this guy) I am literally frozen with fear and confused and drunk.... I am not armed and don't want to appear threatening by accident. Can I PLEASE just lie face down with my arms straight out and you guys come cuff me or whatever? I will not resist or move in any way... but I'm too drunk to process, much less follow your instructions.

(12-13-2017 12:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  They orders may not seem confusing to the cop but they were clearly confusing to the person. Especially given the possibility that he was under the influence.

That was addressed early in the sequence.

He tried talking to them. More bad police work by these bad cops. They weren't letting him and in fact "shut up and don't speak" was part of the orders they were barking at him, orders they were telling him if he failed to follow would likely get him shot.

(12-13-2017 03:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 03:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 03:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I wasn't talking about this specific case. In this case, I think it was a matter of giving too many instructions to a person who was either under the influence or unable to process what he was being told.
I work in a school wit a bunch of special education students. I wouldn't be surprised if this kid was mentally challenged because he is acting exactly like some of my students when you ask them to do too many things at once.

I don't have a problem believing that at all. So what should be done differently?

I don't know if anything could be done differently.

Do cops have training on how to deal with someone who might be mentally challenged?

I ask this becuase I seem to recall another situation where a mentally challenged person was shot because they weren't responding to police orders.

What is the procedure for a cop if the person is not following orders but otherwise not reaching for a weapon.

For example, what if the person had simply frooze spread eagle and didn't move? I doubt the cops would have shot him.

NAMI offers training free of charge that most departments I know of take advantage of. Biggest problem is the fact that due to having to provide Mercedes level service on a Kia budget and having mandatory continuing education that officer have to take to maintain their certification some departments can't afford to pay officers overtime to take the class on their off day or due to limited staffing already can't pull on-duty officers off the street to take it when they are on-duty.

But hey....at least the basketball court in the projects has lights and a fresh coat of paint.

I constantly get taken to task, even on this subject for injecting the unknown into a conversation... and the mentally challenged aspect, best I know, hasn't been broached anywhere by anyone.

The woman had an opportunity to say something... the man had an opportunity to say something... Nobody said anything.

Yes, we want champagne safety on a beer budget, but even then, we want to arm-chair QB every move these guys make.

I wouldn't do that job for 5 times what they currently pay, and I don't know that you'd get significantly higher caliber people (in terms of the ability to manage situations like this) if you did. The chances are very high that a cop will be involved in a shooting in one form or another, and with higher pay would come even higher scrutiny. You couldn't pay me enough to risk life in prison with people I put there on a daily basis.

The guy tried to say something. He was told to shut up. Then the girl tried. Was met with the same shut up. They guy attempted again when he was obviously having difficulty following orders between ***** in his pants. Got a Don't talk.

(12-12-2017 04:57 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 04:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 04:49 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  A normal US citizen, who had committed no crime, and wanted to do nothing bad to the officers, who tried to comply with them....got shot to death by them outside of his hotel room.

Thats a failure of something.

You can argue what it was a failure of....but you are a dumb*** if you won't admit that it was a failure.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

LOL



The expert, who despite never walking the walk is an expert because he "knows some cops", has spoken.

You trot out your standard meaningless ad-hominem every time I post. You need to find some rational arguments one of these days.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

You trot out your standard meaningless anti-law enforcement post every time a cop gets shot/shoots someone. You need to stop pretending you're some sort of LEO expert because you happen to know a cop, or two.