5 ms·

You watched the entire video? It's 5 minutes of conflicting instructions and repeated death threats by a man heavily covered in tattoos carrying an assualt rif

You watched the entire video? It's 5 minutes of conflicting instructions and repeated death threats by a man heavily covered in tattoos carrying an assualt rifle with the words "you're f*ed" engraved on it. How were the multiple police officers incapable of handcuffing the clearly compliant crying victim in 5 whole mins? Am amazed anyone watching that could possibly defend it.

riffraff 9y ago
I looked at the video and I was expecting some semi-threatening move, like suddenly standing up or something. Nope, just randomly shoot the guy. This is insane. Also, how was not the behaviour "stay on the ground, and my colleague will come and handcuff you ASAP". Where the hell are _other_ cops?
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago
  > I was expecting some semi-threatening move Hold on. An unarmed person standing up an even yelling or walking towards the cop it's still clearly not a serious threat and would not justify shooting in most "first" countries! Let's not normalize the idea of "extreme self defence".
  - riffraff 9y ago
    I didn't mean to imply it'd be "justified" in a legal or moral sense to shoot someone because one feels threatened. But I can imagine being scared shitless and pulling the trigger because of a sudden perceived threat, which is why this video felt shocking to me. I obviously don't see why the shooter thought shooting was reasonable, but I also cannot imagine why he felt so threatened to be forced to shoot.
- aquadrop 9y ago
  Yes, that's absolutely insane, I don't have words to describe how insane it is and all that was acquitted... And what's worse, they are all (policemen) on it. One guy shouts moronic commands, another one kills a man for nothing. They have "I'm your God and I decide what happens"-complex. That monster who shot the guy should have been disarmed and handcuffed on the spot for a murder, and get a life sentence. All that "I was afraid for my life" for anything BS should stop, cops are so afraid for their lives they're going to kill everyone for it. And everybody acts like it's normal there, and in the end it's all ok, keep going. Thank god I don't need to go to USA, because I'm afraid I can meet such moronic cops accidentally there.
makepanic 9y ago
Just a small note, the person that shouts the instructions is Sgt. Charles Langley but the shooter is Philip “Mitch” Brailsford. via https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/08/graphic-video-shows-daniel-shaver-sobbing-and-begging-officer-for-his-life-before-2016-shooting/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/0...
- ryanlol 9y ago
  Someone ought to make a website naming, shaming and tracking these people. Maybe the courts wont punish them, but it shouldn’t be very hard to ensure that the label of MURDERER will follow them for life.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    What effect will that even have on them if police departments don't care?
    - ryanlol 9y ago
      It's definitely not much, but having the first google result for someones name point to a dossier with ideally: * Name, DoB * Some decent photos for easy identification * Footage of them murdering someone, pages like this without solid evidence don't seem like a good thing. * Collection of news articles, court documents * Contact information (social media, home address(es), phone numbers) * Employers contact information it's not nothing. Hopefully it'll at least hurt their future employment prospects a little, maybe make it harder for them to find a place to rent. At the very least it'll be easier for their neighbors to find out that they're living next to a killer. Best case scenario they'll waste a lot of their time and money trying to get the site taken down via legal means. From experience I would expect many of these folks to drive themselves crazy trying to do that, generating further source material and drawing even more attention to their past. The somewhat unlikely worst case scenario is that it simply doesn't bother them at all.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
coredog64 9y ago
You're missing the context of the encounter. Police were called when someone saw an occupant of the hotel room brandishing a weapon. The responders don't just walk up and cuff the man and woman because they are not sure if these are the armed people and are trying to stay out of a theoretical field of fire from the room. That's not to say this isn't an awful video to watch. The officers scared the guy so much that it was impossible for him to comply.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  He also repeatedly gave contradictory or difficult-to-follow instructions.
- revelation 9y ago
  How is that the context? Police are called to scenes where someone has believed to have seen a gun all the time. 99% of time, it is not. 99.9999% of time, they are not looking to shoot police with it. "theoretical field of fire" it's not a war zone. It's time to acknowledge that part of the job description of a police officer is that you can do everything right and still be shot by a maniac. That's no different to any of us.
indubitable 9y ago
There's a lengthy line between condemn and condone. One of the police shootings I find completely and absolutely condemnable is that of Charles Kinsey in Florida [1]. And that was perhaps a nervous breakdown of the officer. Apparently when asked why he shot his immediate response was, "I don't know." In this (Daniel Shaver) video, I think you have to consider the context. If this was a normal scenario and this guy was being arrested for e.g. drunken disorderly/theft or something of the sort, then I think murder charges would be completely in order here. However, that's not the context. Let's say you receive multiple reports of a person pointing a rifle outside a hotel window. How are you going to perceive the situation? I find it difficult to imagine many scenarios other than somebody planning to engage in murder or possibly terrorism. The best case scenario would a mentally disturbed individual who is armed and likely dangerous. Did you notice how the officer was constantly tucking himself around the corner? He had no way of knowing whether there were more individuals waiting to ambush the officers. And that is a perfectly justifiable fear given the context of this situation. And the victim in this case reached behind his back multiple times, even after being told precisely not to. He could have been reaching for a weapon or it could have been something for more dangerous - imagine he was reaching for a detonator. It's easy to condemn the police officer, but at the same time this shooting took multiple unbelievably provocative actions on part of the victim to reach this point: point rifle outside hotel room apparently in vicinity of other hotel guests, decide to reach around back when specifically told to keep hands visible, repeat that mistake and reach even more directly towards your waist. I obviously can't condone the act, but on the other hand I also can't entirely condemn it either. It's an extremely unfortunate scenario. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqLd-lEFqsM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqLd-lEFqsM
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Imagined scenarios shouldn't ever be used to justify lethal force. That's all there is to say. Police probably shouldn't ever fire their weapons first... Of course that would make being an officer slightly more physically dangerous, but only slightly. Most never have cause to fire their weapons in the line of duty anyway.
  - davemp 9y ago

riffraff 9y ago

I looked at the video and I was expecting some semi-threatening move, like suddenly standing up or something. Nope, just randomly shoot the guy. This is insane. Also, how was not the behaviour "stay on the ground, and my colleague will come and handcuff you ASAP". Where the hell are _other_ cops?

eeZah7Ux 9y ago
> I was expecting some semi-threatening move Hold on. An unarmed person standing up an even yelling or walking towards the cop it's still clearly not a serious threat and would not justify shooting in most "first" countries! Let's not normalize the idea of "extreme self defence".
- riffraff 9y ago
  I didn't mean to imply it'd be "justified" in a legal or moral sense to shoot someone because one feels threatened. But I can imagine being scared shitless and pulling the trigger because of a sudden perceived threat, which is why this video felt shocking to me. I obviously don't see why the shooter thought shooting was reasonable, but I also cannot imagine why he felt so threatened to be forced to shoot.
aquadrop 9y ago
Yes, that's absolutely insane, I don't have words to describe how insane it is and all that was acquitted... And what's worse, they are all (policemen) on it. One guy shouts moronic commands, another one kills a man for nothing. They have "I'm your God and I decide what happens"-complex. That monster who shot the guy should have been disarmed and handcuffed on the spot for a murder, and get a life sentence. All that "I was afraid for my life" for anything BS should stop, cops are so afraid for their lives they're going to kill everyone for it. And everybody acts like it's normal there, and in the end it's all ok, keep going. Thank god I don't need to go to USA, because I'm afraid I can meet such moronic cops accidentally there.

makepanic 9y ago

Just a small note, the person that shouts the instructions is Sgt. Charles Langley but the shooter is Philip “Mitch” Brailsford. via https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/08/graphic-video-shows-daniel-shaver-sobbing-and-begging-officer-for-his-life-before-2016-shooting/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/0...

ryanlol 9y ago
Someone ought to make a website naming, shaming and tracking these people. Maybe the courts wont punish them, but it shouldn’t be very hard to ensure that the label of MURDERER will follow them for life.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  What effect will that even have on them if police departments don't care?
  - ryanlol 9y ago
    It's definitely not much, but having the first google result for someones name point to a dossier with ideally: * Name, DoB * Some decent photos for easy identification * Footage of them murdering someone, pages like this without solid evidence don't seem like a good thing. * Collection of news articles, court documents * Contact information (social media, home address(es), phone numbers) * Employers contact information it's not nothing. Hopefully it'll at least hurt their future employment prospects a little, maybe make it harder for them to find a place to rent. At the very least it'll be easier for their neighbors to find out that they're living next to a killer. Best case scenario they'll waste a lot of their time and money trying to get the site taken down via legal means. From experience I would expect many of these folks to drive themselves crazy trying to do that, generating further source material and drawing even more attention to their past. The somewhat unlikely worst case scenario is that it simply doesn't bother them at all.
    - emodendroket 9y ago

coredog64 9y ago

You're missing the context of the encounter. Police were called when someone saw an occupant of the hotel room brandishing a weapon. The responders don't just walk up and cuff the man and woman because they are not sure if these are the armed people and are trying to stay out of a theoretical field of fire from the room. That's not to say this isn't an awful video to watch. The officers scared the guy so much that it was impossible for him to comply.

emodendroket 9y ago
He also repeatedly gave contradictory or difficult-to-follow instructions.
revelation 9y ago
How is that the context? Police are called to scenes where someone has believed to have seen a gun all the time. 99% of time, it is not. 99.9999% of time, they are not looking to shoot police with it. "theoretical field of fire" it's not a war zone. It's time to acknowledge that part of the job description of a police officer is that you can do everything right and still be shot by a maniac. That's no different to any of us.

indubitable 9y ago

There's a lengthy line between condemn and condone. One of the police shootings I find completely and absolutely condemnable is that of Charles Kinsey in Florida [1]. And that was perhaps a nervous breakdown of the officer. Apparently when asked why he shot his immediate response was, "I don't know." In this (Daniel Shaver) video, I think you have to consider the context. If this was a normal scenario and this guy was being arrested for e.g. drunken disorderly/theft or something of the sort, then I think murder charges would be completely in order here. However, that's not the context. Let's say you receive multiple reports of a person pointing a rifle outside a hotel window. How are you going to perceive the situation? I find it difficult to imagine many scenarios other than somebody planning to engage in murder or possibly terrorism. The best case scenario would a mentally disturbed individual who is armed and likely dangerous. Did you notice how the officer was constantly tucking himself around the corner? He had no way of knowing whether there were more individuals waiting to ambush the officers. And that is a perfectly justifiable fear given the context of this situation. And the victim in this case reached behind his back multiple times, even after being told precisely not to. He could have been reaching for a weapon or it could have been something for more dangerous - imagine he was reaching for a detonator. It's easy to condemn the police officer, but at the same time this shooting took multiple unbelievably provocative actions on part of the victim to reach this point: point rifle outside hotel room apparently in vicinity of other hotel guests, decide to reach around back when specifically told to keep hands visible, repeat that mistake and reach even more directly towards your waist. I obviously can't condone the act, but on the other hand I also can't entirely condemn it either. It's an extremely unfortunate scenario. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqLd-lEFqsM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqLd-lEFqsM

maxerickson 9y ago
Imagined scenarios shouldn't ever be used to justify lethal force. That's all there is to say. Police probably shouldn't ever fire their weapons first... Of course that would make being an officer slightly more physically dangerous, but only slightly. Most never have cause to fire their weapons in the line of duty anyway.
- davemp 9y ago