TexasCHLforum.com

Wolverine wrote:The police responded to a rifle pointed out a window. Based on the video, I don't see how a reasonable man could think Daniel Shaver had a rifle hidden in his pants, especially after seeing him flat on the floor. What worries me as much as the trigger happy gunman with obscenities on his AR-15 is the scenario where there actually was a dangerous MWAG (before the cops arrived) and the police were so focused on some unarmed drunk guy that they allowed an active shooter to escape, or kill more people.

parabelum wrote:When a man gets 15 years for bacon in mosque and vandalism (it is criminal and I do agree that penalty ought to be strict), but this one walks out singing, it is a sad day.

How about that pharmacist in OK, remember that? You think that was worse?

Again, very sad pathetic verdict.

Like olbill mentioned earlier, if you or I had done this, we’d be in prison, likely facing premeditated murder charge.

E.Marquez wrote:

A little known secret - many combat veterans are not nice people.

Also a little known fact, many "Combat veterans" heard a lot more combat then they ever participated in
A well known fact,"are not nice people" applies to any demographic you wish to label..teachers, Cops, real estate agents or librarians

chasfm11 wrote:

mayor wrote:

OlBill wrote:"If you talk to any combat veteran..."

Maybe combat veterans should be vetted extremely well before being hired by police force, sheriff's department, mall security...

TAM recommended the book "Rise of the Warrior Cop" a few months back. I took that advice and in the book found the suggestion that the types of officers who were the most likely to want to join SWAT like teams were the ones who deserved the greatest scrutiny in the application process. The book suggests that the mindset can be just wrong.

Having said that, I think that we can miss the biggest problem. Departments are often driven by the mindset of chief. The rank and file officers are likely to reflect that mindset. A Facebook poster yesterday suggested that the best approach would be to elect politicians who would hire chiefs of police who didn't drive toward the "warrior cop" environment. The chief doesn't have to create warrior cop thinking but just tolerating it can be a problem.

mayor wrote:

OlBill wrote:"If you talk to any combat veteran..."

Maybe combat veterans should be vetted extremely well before being hired by police force, sheriff's department, mall security...

Mike S wrote:I would encourage everyone who has commented to re-visit the link provided by the OP. The original video on the (activist) reporter's Twitter feed that was embedded into the Newsweek article is now showing almost 6 minutes of body cam footage. The original video (at least when I watched it on my phone yesterday morning) was only a fraction of the actual encounter (lots of yelling; pleading by the young man to not shoot him; and a seemingly compliant subject getting shot five times for adjusting his sweat pants).

This extended version demonstrates that the young man was very drunk (not belligerent; he seemed willing to comply, but unable to do so based on his state of mind), and had already been warned several times to not put his hands down/reach into his waistband/behind his back.

This extended version also shows that the police sergeant in control of the scene wasn't yelling commands the entire time; he was doing what first responders aught to do; Get Control. He yelled commands, & they both complied and got down on the floor. When they were compliant, he stopped barking commands & used a clear & even tone. He explained the gravity of following commands; he had the female subject crawl towards the officers, and in an even tone directed an officer (off camera) to secure & search her (even correcting the officer when he announced "Clear" prior to her being frisked [yes, this could be a training deficiency; I don't know how much training a non-SWAT officer receives in their basic academy for working in a dynamic team environment. It could also indicate the high stress level of the responding officers based on the call of someone having a rifle on the 5th floor window/balcony...).

When the subjects were not compliant, his tone raised & he re-asserted control. Again, this may be rude in the context of day to day life, but not in the context of exerting control over a subject who may be a threat (or, for the greater crowd on this great forum: if you ever have to exert control over an attacker who is no longer a threat of death/serious bodily injury, but needs to be controlled until first responders arrive. Use your command voice!).

Why did he command them to crawl towards the officers, rather than officers approaching to handcuff/search them? As OlBill indicated, this was in a hotel; they had just exited the door where someone had reported someone with rifle. In the extended version you see how close the room door is to where the subjects were proned out on the floor. Rifle rounds (as well as pistol rounds) will go thru most doors & walls.

Was it a justifiable use of deadly force? According to the jury who declined to convict, I'm guessing it wasn't 2nd Degree Murder. It's called the Subject's Actions + the Totality of the Circumstances. Someone called the police to report a person/people with a rifle on a 5th floor window/balcony/whatever. Officers stacked in the hallway, & subjects came out of the room. The male subject wasn't able to comply with commands, put his hands behind his back on at least one occasion prior to being shot, and made jerky erratic movement at other times. When he crawled (on command) towards the officers, he made a movement towards his waist, behind his back (I'm thinking he was pulling up his sweat pants, but I wasn't the one there).

Why didn't the other officers shoot? I assume they didn't process the young man's actions as a threat, whereas one officer did process the movement as a threat. It could be that the other officers are more seasoned, better able to handle the stressors of the job, or had a better overall assessment of the situation. It could also be that the officer that did shoot had a bad attitude or lack of professionalism [solely going there based on what TAM reported of the obscenity engraved on the dust cover of the AR-15].

Would I have taken the shot? Not likely, unless I actually saw a weapon. But I've likely trained more, been shot at a couple times more, and [generally] was able to keep my cool under stress while deployed. Not that I'm perfect; I assure you I'm not.

In the end, I'd be very cautious in making judgments based on a short video excerpt posted by someone with an agenda. Even the almost 6-minute version omits the overall background situation (or Totality of the Circumstances).

mojo84 wrote:

OlBill wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Seems like the propper procedure would have been to have the guy lay still face down and cover him while another officer or two approached and cuffed him. But what do I know. I'm just a mere citizen with no special training.

They were trying to get him away from the room so they could stack on it. Hotels are hard.

Las Vegas got that guy killed.

How did the Vegas incident have an effect on this situation that happened in January of 2016 which was long before Vegas?

mojo84 wrote:Seems like the propper procedure would have been to have the guy lay still face down and cover him while another officer or two approached and cuffed him. But what do I know. I'm just a mere citizen with no special training.