In hindsight, with Shaver lying on the floor spread-eagle, why not approach him with a couple of other officers with weapons aimed, and cuff him. If they were concerned about others in the room, have the other officers at the door of the room ready to fire.

(12-10-2017 12:15 PM)450bench Wrote:  In hindsight, with Shaver lying on the floor spread-eagle, why not approach him with a couple of other officers with weapons aimed, and cuff him. If they were concerned about others in the room, have the other officers at the door of the room ready to fire.

Can't disagree, but in the heat of the moment, shyte happens.

I don't even know what the charge was against the officer. Was it a murder charge?

Remember, our system is set up on the basis that it is better to free a guilty individual than to ever convict an innocent one of murder so there's a huge burden on the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the intent was murder.

I know I'm shooting my mouth off without all the facts, but hey, that's what we do here, is it not?

(12-10-2017 12:27 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 12:15 PM)450bench Wrote:  In hindsight, with Shaver lying on the floor spread-eagle, why not approach him with a couple of other officers with weapons aimed, and cuff him. If they were concerned about others in the room, have the other officers at the door of the room ready to fire.

Can't disagree, but in the heat of the moment, shyte happens.

I don't even know what the charge was against the officer. Was it a murder charge?

Remember, our system is set up on the basis that it is better to free a guilty individual than to ever convict an innocent one of murder so there's a huge burden on the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the intent was murder.

I know I'm shooting my mouth off without all the facts, but hey, that's what we do here, is it not?

Yep, good points.

(12-09-2017 11:58 PM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  I agree. That was very hard to watch. Cop was a prick. Now, I have no problem with him threatening the victim to keep him in line, but he had a quick trigger. Should have shot over the victim or in a nonlethal area.

I'm not a lawyer or a cop, but he was acquitted because the victim raised his right arm to his posterior waist area. I'm sure the defense was that they thought he was going for a gun. But that entire arrest sequence seemed too drawn out to me. Glad he was fired.

There is no such thing as a "non-lethal area" when using firearms. All the training in the world can't account for the variability in each individual shooting.
- Physiology of shooter & shootee
- Relative position of shooter & shootee
- Ad infinitum

Also, what would the officer say in court...."I shot to wound...he wasn't supposed to bleed out/get an infection and die/have a heart attack from the induced stress"?

(12-11-2017 10:32 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(12-09-2017 11:58 PM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  I agree. That was very hard to watch. Cop was a prick. Now, I have no problem with him threatening the victim to keep him in line, but he had a quick trigger. Should have shot over the victim or in a nonlethal area.

I'm not a lawyer or a cop, but he was acquitted because the victim raised his right arm to his posterior waist area. I'm sure the defense was that they thought he was going for a gun. But that entire arrest sequence seemed too drawn out to me. Glad he was fired.

There is no such thing as a "non-lethal area" when using firearms. All the training in the world can't account for the variability in each individual shooting.
- Physiology of shooter & shootee
- Relative position of shooter & shootee
- Ad infinitum

Also, what would the officer say in court...."I shot to wound...he wasn't supposed to bleed out/get an infection and die/have a heart attack from the induced stress"?

Really? Not a single non lethal area of the body? That must be why GSW are 100% fatal. My mistake.

(12-11-2017 11:16 AM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 10:32 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(12-09-2017 11:58 PM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  I agree. That was very hard to watch. Cop was a prick. Now, I have no problem with him threatening the victim to keep him in line, but he had a quick trigger. Should have shot over the victim or in a nonlethal area.

I'm not a lawyer or a cop, but he was acquitted because the victim raised his right arm to his posterior waist area. I'm sure the defense was that they thought he was going for a gun. But that entire arrest sequence seemed too drawn out to me. Glad he was fired.

There is no such thing as a "non-lethal area" when using firearms. All the training in the world can't account for the variability in each individual shooting.
- Physiology of shooter & shootee
- Relative position of shooter & shootee
- Ad infinitum

Also, what would the officer say in court...."I shot to wound...he wasn't supposed to bleed out/get an infection and die/have a heart attack from the induced stress"?

Really? Not a single non lethal area of the body? That must be why GSW are 100% fatal. My mistake.

This may be more informative than my simplified statements, if you're truly interested.

Why Police Aren't Trained to Shoot to Wound

"Shoot to stop a lethal threat, not to wound or kill."

(12-09-2017 11:58 PM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  I agree. That was very hard to watch. Cop was a prick. Now, I have no problem with him threatening the victim to keep him in line, but he had a quick trigger. Should have shot over the victim or in a nonlethal area.

I'm not a lawyer or a cop, but he was acquitted because the victim raised his right arm to his posterior waist area. I'm sure the defense was that they thought he was going for a gun. But that entire arrest sequence seemed too drawn out to me. Glad he was fired.

I'm kind of with BRE on this... whichever cop was doing the vocalizing.. that was horrible police procedure... and he deserves to have been fired from his job.

But as for shooting the guy, the cops did say three times (that I counted), that if he put his hands to his waist or his back, he was going to get shot... (And yes, I understand the kid was terrified).

And as tech wrote:

Quote: I was surprised he wasn't fired upon when he first put both hands behind his back. That is a classic move to reach for a weapon

This.. if there had been the shooting at that point, I would have not been surprised at all.

That video looks like a deadly game of Simon says.

Simon says cross your feet. Simon says crawl towards me.

I didn't say uncross your legs bang bang bang.

(12-11-2017 12:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  That video looks like a deadly game of Simon says.

Simon says cross your feet. Simon says crawl towards me.

I didn't say uncross your legs bang bang bang.

I have to actually agree with Fit here. There would be a ton of pressure on the guy being arrested and he is really at the point where he has to make best guess at what to do knowing that doing the wrong thing gets him shot.

Personally, I would have laid there, face down, spread eagle and not moved. If they were going to shoot me for non-compliance in that position, so be it.

It reminds me of the first Basic class I took way back in 1984. The assignment was to write a "program" for making a peanut butter sandwich. The professor was in front of the class with a loaf of bread, knife, and a jar of peanut butter. He asks for the first step and someone says "open the bread". He grabs the plastic wrapper and pulls it apart and bread flies everywhere. Point is, you have to be very specific because generalized instructions are interpreted differently.

Great Point Banker

What would have happened if he had just laid there face down with his hands and arms out and not moved?

(12-11-2017 02:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Great Point Banker
What would have happened if he had just laid there face down with his hands and arms out and not moved?

Frankly, watching the video I'm confused as to exactly WTF the officer wanted him to do.

(12-11-2017 05:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 02:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Great Point Banker
What would have happened if he had just laid there face down with his hands and arms out and not moved?

Frankly, watching the video I'm confused as to exactly WTF the officer wanted him to do.

it was simple.....and the girl figured it out....

ol' boy was ****** the **** up.....

when in that situation - more specifically with all the bs that is tossed salad these days - I would've have acquitted too....

has anyone seen the toxicology results yet....

a low IQ dumbarse points a gun out a 28.00/night window....what a ******* dipshite....

these are drunk fk'n crack/meth heads.....

how do I know that.....they're littered down hwy49 in the 'burg....

happens every day in the world most of yaz don't ever witness......

(12-11-2017 05:55 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 05:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 02:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Great Point Banker
What would have happened if he had just laid there face down with his hands and arms out and not moved?

Frankly, watching the video I'm confused as to exactly WTF the officer wanted him to do.

it was simple.....and the girl figured it out....

ol' boy was ****** the **** up.....

when in that situation - more specifically with all the bs that is tossed salad these days - I would've have acquitted too....

has anyone seen the toxicology results yet....

a low IQ dumbarse points a gun out a 28.00/night window....what a ******* dipshite....

these are drunk fk'n crack/meth heads.....

how do I know that.....they're littered down hwy49 in the 'burg....

happens every day in the world most of yaz don't ever witness......

That was reported to the police. Does not mean that is what he did. Most of those hotels/motels do not have windows that open. the police would have not even known if he was the guy who reportedly did that. They knew the location of the room. Another male could have exited the room and been killed.

(12-11-2017 05:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 02:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Great Point Banker
What would have happened if he had just laid there face down with his hands and arms out and not moved?

Frankly, watching the video I'm confused as to exactly WTF the officer wanted him to do.

I'm not. It was only confusing because the guy was so impatient in responding/complying that he jerkingly complied (when he did). The cop gave him chance after chance...

If the cop had just explained his concern about you having your hands behind your back, and you had your hands behind your back and the cop said, put your hands where I can see them... would you pull them out quickly? If he said, get to your knees, would you 'hop' to your knees?

It's horrible to be sure, but the cop even asked if he was drunk and he said no.

Of course, part of the problem could be the uneducated and person looking to make a point about guns and gun owners who calls and reports something entirely benign as a 'potential terrorist act'.

We don't really know what happened, only what the cops were told...

and the woman was able to comply with little trouble.

(12-11-2017 06:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 05:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 02:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Great Point Banker
What would have happened if he had just laid there face down with his hands and arms out and not moved?

Frankly, watching the video I'm confused as to exactly WTF the officer wanted him to do.

I'm not. It was only confusing because the guy was so impatient in responding/complying that he jerkingly complied (when he did). The cop gave him chance after chance...

If the cop had just explained his concern about you having your hands behind your back, and you had your hands behind your back and the cop said, put your hands where I can see them... would you pull them out quickly? If he said, get to your knees, would you 'hop' to your knees?

It's horrible to be sure, but the cop even asked if he was drunk and he said no.

Of course, part of the problem could be the uneducated and person looking to make a point about guns and gun owners who calls and reports something entirely benign as a 'potential terrorist act'.

We don't really know what happened, only what the cops were told...

and the woman was able to comply with little trouble.

There was 2 cops there. The one giving orders was not the shooter. They let the female slide by because they had a report of a man with a gun/rifle.

(12-11-2017 06:23 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  There was 2 cops there. The one giving orders was not the shooter. They let the female slide by because they had a report of a man with a gun/rifle.

Sure, but they also had instructions for the woman to lay flat, crawl etc.... and she didn't reach behind her multiple times

Remember he asked 'clear?' and the other said, not yet. They were being VERY careful

Watch the guy.... If I was concerned that he was like the previous shooter perhaps with a gun or a bomb, he gave me half a dozen reasons to shoot.

the cop was VERY specific about why he needed to keep his hands in view.... and he didn't.

(12-10-2017 12:15 PM)450bench Wrote:  In hindsight, with Shaver lying on the floor spread-eagle, why not approach him with a couple of other officers with weapons aimed, and cuff him. If they were concerned about others in the room, have the other officers at the door of the room ready to fire.

Because the possible hidden subject has the advantage and unless you have a death wish you never give up the advantage.

(12-11-2017 11:16 AM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 10:32 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(12-09-2017 11:58 PM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  I agree. That was very hard to watch. Cop was a prick. Now, I have no problem with him threatening the victim to keep him in line, but he had a quick trigger. Should have shot over the victim or in a nonlethal area.

I'm not a lawyer or a cop, but he was acquitted because the victim raised his right arm to his posterior waist area. I'm sure the defense was that they thought he was going for a gun. But that entire arrest sequence seemed too drawn out to me. Glad he was fired.

There is no such thing as a "non-lethal area" when using firearms. All the training in the world can't account for the variability in each individual shooting.
- Physiology of shooter & shootee
- Relative position of shooter & shootee
- Ad infinitum

Also, what would the officer say in court...."I shot to wound...he wasn't supposed to bleed out/get an infection and die/have a heart attack from the induced stress"?

Really? Not a single non lethal area of the body? That must be why GSW are 100% fatal. My mistake.

I've ran GSW calls to people who were shot in the chest and walked up to us when we arrived on scene. I've also seen people who we were unable to resuscitate from being shot in the calf.

Now where exactly are you wanting them to shoot someone so it's "non-lethal"?

(12-11-2017 06:09 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 05:55 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 05:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 02:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Great Point Banker
What would have happened if he had just laid there face down with his hands and arms out and not moved?

Frankly, watching the video I'm confused as to exactly WTF the officer wanted him to do.

it was simple.....and the girl figured it out....

ol' boy was ****** the **** up.....

when in that situation - more specifically with all the bs that is tossed salad these days - I would've have acquitted too....

has anyone seen the toxicology results yet....

a low IQ dumbarse points a gun out a 28.00/night window....what a ******* dipshite....

these are drunk fk'n crack/meth heads.....

how do I know that.....they're littered down hwy49 in the 'burg....

happens every day in the world most of yaz don't ever witness......

That was reported to the police. Does not mean that is what he did. Most of those hotels/motels do not have windows that open. the police would have not even known if he was the guy who reportedly did that. They knew the location of the room. Another male could have exited the room and been killed.

since you cherry picked that line item......

what else does the jury have to listen to when the defense calls to the stand....

hell, I'm hardly a lawyer.....nor was I on the jury.....

however, what has been published to date coupled with the vid, I can easily state ol' boy denied he had been drinking, he reached behind his back (that's when I'd have popped the midsection after DIRECT ORDERS HOW to PROCEED), and dropped his hands the second time....

that's my take.....like it or not....it's pretty easy to watch a vid 30 times and realize what the **** happened.......they didn't have that opportunity in the moment.....

so, I say **** that....

(12-11-2017 06:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 06:23 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  There was 2 cops there. The one giving orders was not the shooter. They let the female slide by because they had a report of a man with a gun/rifle.

Sure, but they also had instructions for the woman to lay flat, crawl etc.... and she didn't reach behind her multiple times

Remember he asked 'clear?' and the other said, not yet. They were being VERY careful

Watch the guy.... If I was concerned that he was like the previous shooter perhaps with a gun or a bomb, he gave me half a dozen reasons to shoot.

the cop was VERY specific about why he needed to keep his hands in view.... and he didn't.

They had him on the ground, lying down spread eagle with his hands on the floor and then raised above his head almost immediately. They could have secured and cuffed him. They gave him God knows how many commands. And he was unarmed.