(12-12-2017 01:29 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 11:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 11:07 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  The cops were scared because they were in a hallway. They should not be cops.

And I repeat my earlier post. You obviously have it all figured out.....time to put your money where your mouth is. Well actually YOUR ass on the line instead of being a keyboard cowboy. Let's see how you like advancing down a hallway towards armed suspects with no cover and nowhere to go. Like I said, get to steppin'..... the job closes at 2359hrs next Monday.

Armed suspects? Is that what they were responding to becuase I had heard it was just one guy with an air rifle.

It was determined after the fact but they were responding to someone pointing a rifle out of a hotel room.

(12-12-2017 01:01 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

Quote:It seems obvious that it's not about being afraid.... It's about having the manpower to address the situation.

The woman was subdued and the man dead. No need to cover them anymore.... and If there were another shooter, especially with a bomb, this is precisely the time he would have set it off. No time to wait... and those people rushed into a situation to save our sorry asses and you guys want to condemn them for it? Pitiful.

I cut out most of your post because the part in bold is just flat out wrong.....

There was no more manpower there before the shots than 5 seconds after the shooting. That's just silly to say other wise.

The cop shot the kid. With in 5 seconds both move in and then to the door.

NOTHING CHANGED during those 5 seconds other than shooting the kid. If there was a threat around the hall or in that room before the shooting...keeping the cops from having this kid lay flat with fingers locked behind his head and moving in to cuff.

I love it when people claim someone is flat out wrong, and then demonstrate their lack of comprehension with what they are responding to.

How many cops does it take to subdue and then guard a dead man?

I thought I was pretty clear that the math changed....

2:3 before the woman is subdued
2:2 after she is subdued
2:1 after the man is shot and now the remaining 1 is thinking 'I'm next'.

If the cops weren't concerned about what he would do next, why rush the door at all?

Quote:But that still doesn't change.....NOTHING happen with the shooting to change a perceived threat down the hall or at the unseen door. Yet those 2 cops moved right in. The fear from the unknown was still there. Lets play "if there was a bomb".

Where in the world that came from I don't know but lets play that game of what if....who in the hell rushes in to the person with a bomb? That's just silly

You've obviously never known anyone who does this sort of thing for a living.

'Where that came from?' So let's assume that this is a sniper event.... THAT is what the cops are arriving in riot gear with rifles for.... it is obviously now a sniper 'team'.

Do Snipers or sniper teams often try and take as many casualties as possible? Of course. Are they often prepared to die in the exchange? Of course. MAYBE he comes out shooting... MAYBE he sets off a bomb... MAYBE he just starts shooting through other windows. Cops are rushing in to stop that. That's what we ask cops to do.

Your 'nothing changed' is what is flat out wrong. Prior to the shooting, there is one person in cuffs and two others to be concerned about. After the shooting, there is one person in cuffs and only one to be concerned about... and now that shots have been fired, he may well be more desperate. He is CERTAINLY not just thinking 'nothing has changed' after shots are fired.

(12-12-2017 01:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 01:29 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Armed suspects? Is that what they were responding to becuase I had heard it was just one guy with an air rifle.

It was determined after the fact but they were responding to someone pointing a rifle out of a hotel room.

Is that what was reported to the police?

If it was, I'd not only convict the cops, I'd convict the moron who placed the call alleging a sniper.

The fact that you 'go here' demonstrates what i think most people do in these situations... they judge things based on what they know now, not what was known then. Not saying you did this in your evaluation of the event, but you certainly are doing it now.

Quote:And he was unarmed.

How could a cop know this until the subject has been searched?

(12-12-2017 02:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 01:01 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

Quote:It seems obvious that it's not about being afraid.... It's about having the manpower to address the situation.

The woman was subdued and the man dead. No need to cover them anymore.... and If there were another shooter, especially with a bomb, this is precisely the time he would have set it off. No time to wait... and those people rushed into a situation to save our sorry asses and you guys want to condemn them for it? Pitiful.

I cut out most of your post because the part in bold is just flat out wrong.....

There was no more manpower there before the shots than 5 seconds after the shooting. That's just silly to say other wise.

The cop shot the kid. With in 5 seconds both move in and then to the door.

NOTHING CHANGED during those 5 seconds other than shooting the kid. If there was a threat around the hall or in that room before the shooting...keeping the cops from having this kid lay flat with fingers locked behind his head and moving in to cuff.

I love it when people claim someone is flat out wrong, and then demonstrate their lack of comprehension with what they are responding to.

How many cops does it take to subdue and then guard a dead man?

I thought I was pretty clear that the math changed....

2:3 before the woman is subdued
2:2 after she is subdued
2:1 after the man is shot and now the remaining 1 is thinking 'I'm next'.

If the cops weren't concerned about what he would do next, why rush the door at all?

Quote:But that still doesn't change.....NOTHING happen with the shooting to change a perceived threat down the hall or at the unseen door. Yet those 2 cops moved right in. The fear from the unknown was still there. Lets play "if there was a bomb".

Where in the world that came from I don't know but lets play that game of what if....who in the hell rushes in to the person with a bomb? That's just silly

You've obviously never known anyone who does this sort of thing for a living.

'Where that came from?' So let's assume that this is a sniper event.... THAT is what the cops are arriving in riot gear with rifles for.... it is obviously now a sniper 'team'.

Do Snipers or sniper teams often try and take as many casualties as possible? Of course. Are they often prepared to die in the exchange? Of course. MAYBE he comes out shooting... MAYBE he sets off a bomb... MAYBE he just starts shooting through other windows. Cops are rushing in to stop that. That's what we ask cops to do.

Your 'nothing changed' is what is flat out wrong. Prior to the shooting, there is one person in cuffs and two others to be concerned about. After the shooting, there is one person in cuffs and only one to be concerned about... and now that shots have been fired, he may well be more desperate. He is CERTAINLY not just thinking 'nothing has changed' after shots are fired.

(12-12-2017 01:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 01:29 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Armed suspects? Is that what they were responding to becuase I had heard it was just one guy with an air rifle.

It was determined after the fact but they were responding to someone pointing a rifle out of a hotel room.

Is that what was reported to the police?

If it was, I'd not only convict the cops, I'd convict the moron who placed the call alleging a sniper.

The fact that you 'go here' demonstrates what i think most people do in these situations... they judge things based on what they know now, not what was known then. Not saying you did this in your evaluation of the event, but you certainly are doing it now.

Nothing changed...the number of people there remained the same. The girl was still there. The guy was still there. He was shot and I assume the cop thought he had a gun. So that threat was still there till he was known to be DEAD. At that point he could have had a gun in his hand and shot them. Not likely but still the threat was there.

This bomb shiit is just stupid...no one called the cops because someone had a bomb. You are just making crap up to make the threat bigger.

Nothing you can say can change the fact that according to you and a few more. The reason they did not go cuff the kid while he was spread eagle. The cops feared what they could not see.

That unseen threat was still there after killing the kid. You can play out a 1000 different things in your mind. It will still not change those facts. The only difference....

this kid was laying curled up with his hands unseen after being shot because the cop must have thought he was going for a gun. Yet they did not search him to see if he was dead or had a gun before moving past him. They actually turned their back to someone laying on the ground with a gun. Of course we know the kid did not have a gun. But the cop thought so and at this point if he thought that...the threat was still there.

There's a god reason this cop got fired. So you can assume about bombs or try to read their mind. The video shows what happened and we know the cop was fired and the other was allowed to retire instead of being fired.

Bomb...if a freaking cop thinks there might be a bomb he calls the bomb squad. Not go rushing up to it. A freaking bomb...is that the best you came up with?

(12-12-2017 03:46 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  There's a god reason this cop got fired.

There were several, none of which were caused by this incident.

(12-12-2017 03:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 03:46 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  There's a god reason this cop got fired.

There were several, none of which were caused by this incident.

Do you think this incident could have been handled by the cops better?

If so, what should they have done?

(12-12-2017 03:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 03:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 03:46 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  There's a god reason this cop got fired.

There were several, none of which were caused by this incident.

Do you think this incident could have been handled by the cops better?

If so, what should they have done?

There should have been more officers on scene before entry, but that's a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation. Had it been someone with an actual rifle and they started firing while you waited for backup you'd be crucified for that by all of you law enforcement "experts" as well. Sometimes you just have to make a choice between two equally ****** decisions and hope you chose the one that stinks less.

(12-12-2017 03:46 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Nothing changed...the number of people there remained the same. The girl was still there.

The girl was in cuffs and had been searched. That is a change. The guy had been shot numerous times, that is a change.

Quote:The guy was still there. He was shot and I assume the cop thought he had a gun. So that threat was still there till he was known to be DEAD. At that point he could have had a gun in his hand and shot them. Not likely but still the threat was there.

So while arguing that things hadn't changed, you go through a litany of meaningful changes.

I heard numerous gunshots at close range with scoped rifles. It would have taken mere moments to 'clear' him. Even if I fully accept your premise, you admit that the threat he posed was significantly mitigated by having been shot numerous times at close range.

Quote:This bomb shiit is just stupid...no one called the cops because someone had a bomb. You are just making crap up to make the threat bigger.

I never said they did... and I don't consider a threat of a bomb to be meaningfully more significant than a sniper in a window. That's on you that you think I'm trying to make it 'bigger'. Substitute that he's still in the room with the rifle and it's still a significant threat not only to cops, but more importantly to the civilian population that needs to be addressed.... and in the opinion of the officers and apparently the jury, they acted at least somewhat appropriately, your opinion aside. The threat of a mass murderer in a hotel window has not yet been addressed until they recover the weapon and/or subdue all of the suspects.

Quote:Nothing you can say can change the fact that according to you and a few more. The reason they did not go cuff the kid while he was spread eagle. The cops feared what they could not see.

You say fear... that again is on you. I say it wasn't their primary concern at the moment. Their primary concern at the moment was the threat they could see, but they also were aware of a secondary unknown threat... so how they treated the primary threat was influenced by the existence of other threats. Once the primary threat was mitigated, even if not eliminated (your theory) the secondary threat became primary and was now easily arguably more pressing. The only person the guy in the hall was going to shoot was the cops. The guy in the room could shoot cops, OR civilians. That is precisely the point that the cops are at risk the whole time... they are trying to protect US! The threat isn't eliminated until the rifle is recovered.

Quote:That unseen threat was still there after killing the kid. You can play out a 1000 different things in your mind. It will still not change those facts. The only difference....

Which is why they rushed the room.

Quote:this kid was laying curled up with his hands unseen after being shot because the cop must have thought he was going for a gun. Yet they did not search him to see if he was dead or had a gun before moving past him. They actually turned their back to someone laying on the ground with a gun. Of course we know the kid did not have a gun. But the cop thought so and at this point if he thought that...the threat was still there.

Actually the cop probably knew the moment he saw his hands and no gun that he hadn't reached for a gun. What's he supposed to do at that point? Just because he doesn't have a hand-gun doesn't mean there isn't a rifle or that they weren't planning on shooting people with it.

Quote:There's a god reason this cop got fired. So you can assume about bombs or try to read their mind. The video shows what happened and we know the cop was fired and the other was allowed to retire instead of being fired.

actually you're the one reading their minds. I think the biggest reason for the above is the public perception. Why would you let an accessory to murder retire or simply lose his job?

As I said, if you want to debate whether he followed department policy, that's another question and I'm sure you're not qualified to speak on it (nor am I). According to what I read from the Mesa Police, he was fired for what he had etched on his rifle, in violation of policy. Especially in light of the fact that he was fired months before the trial, I am 100% convinced that the Mesa Police would not want to be admitting his guilt in his firing.... THEY would then be on the hook, you see.


But yes, go ahead and continue to focus on the most trivial part of my post as if it somehow invalidated the fact that the people who know more about this case than any of us (the jury) took less than 6 hours to acquit him.


The PRIMARY threat to the public was the rifle and whatever else was going on in the room.
The delay in coming out in the room leads to suspicions about 'why' and what they're doing.
The fact that two come out, but not three keeps that risk alive, but you have to work through the threat you see first to get to the second.
They did exactly that.

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

(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.

(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

(12-12-2017 04:02 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 03:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 03:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 03:46 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  There's a god reason this cop got fired.

There were several, none of which were caused by this incident.

Do you think this incident could have been handled by the cops better?

If so, what should they have done?

There should have been more officers on scene before entry, but that's a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation. Had it been someone with an actual rifle and they started firing while you waited for backup you'd be crucified for that by all of you law enforcement "experts" as well. Sometimes you just have to make a choice between two equally ****** decisions and hope you chose the one that stinks less.

I thought the same thing. Why wasn't there more cops.

I wondered why they were asking him to crawl toward them when there were only two of them and they still didn't know if there were more bad guys in the room.

(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

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.

(12-12-2017 05:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 04:02 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 03:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 03:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 03:46 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  There's a god reason this cop got fired.

There were several, none of which were caused by this incident.

Do you think this incident could have been handled by the cops better?

If so, what should they have done?

There should have been more officers on scene before entry, but that's a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation. Had it been someone with an actual rifle and they started firing while you waited for backup you'd be crucified for that by all of you law enforcement "experts" as well. Sometimes you just have to make a choice between two equally ****** decisions and hope you chose the one that stinks less.

I thought the same thing. Why wasn't there more cops.

Probably because like everywhere else Mesa expects Mercedes S-Class level public safety on a Kia Soul budget.

Quote:I wondered why they were asking him to crawl toward them when there were only two of them and they still didn't know if there were more bad guys in the room.

They were trying to get him away from the door opening so that they could safely secure him. The only thing I may have done different there under those circumstances is have him lay down facing away from me and my back-up and crawl towards me backwards. If he would have had a weapon the delay between him pulling it and turning to fire may have allowed me to get off the first shot.

(12-12-2017 05:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 05:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 04:02 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 03:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 03:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  There were several, none of which were caused by this incident.

Do you think this incident could have been handled by the cops better?

If so, what should they have done?

There should have been more officers on scene before entry, but that's a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation. Had it been someone with an actual rifle and they started firing while you waited for backup you'd be crucified for that by all of you law enforcement "experts" as well. Sometimes you just have to make a choice between two equally ****** decisions and hope you chose the one that stinks less.

I thought the same thing. Why wasn't there more cops.

Probably because like everywhere else Mesa expects Mercedes S-Class level public safety on a Kia Soul budget.

Quote:I wondered why they were asking him to crawl toward them when there were only two of them and they still didn't know if there were more bad guys in the room.

They were trying to get him away from the door opening so that they could safely secure him. The only thing I may have done different there under those circumstances is have him lay down facing away from me and my back-up and crawl towards me backwards. If he would have had a weapon the delay between him pulling it and turning to fire may have allowed me to get off the first shot.

That's a good point. I don't think I have ever seen a cop ask someone to crawl toward them facing forward. It seemed from the video that this obscured his hands more.

(12-12-2017 05:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(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

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.

Bad cops. Bad shooting. Bad jury.

A high percentage of people including posters here would be dead if they had been that guy.

And bs about the girl complying. While the guy did immediately comply, she could have been the first casualty within seconds of the encounter for not following instructions.

He's dead because of the cops actions. He was down and complying. THEY kept telling him to move around. He's alive if not for their ****** up game of Simon says.

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

(12-12-2017 05:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(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

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.

(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:  

(12-12-2017 04:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  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

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

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, *******".