Daniel Shaver shooting

[Frederick]

[NSFL]

I don't know if you guys have seen this yet, but it's quite a shocking video.

In it, Mesa police officers are responding to a call about an individual pointing a rifle out of the 5th floor of a hotel. It turns out it was an intoxicated individual by the name of Daniel Shaver. He was a Pest Control specialist of some kind, and had several air rifles he was showing off.

Unfortunately, the Police arrived and began issuing contradictory instructions. The intoxicated individual was unable to follow the instructions and was subsequently shot.

Really seems like a **** show and in my view paints the entire LEO community in a dim light. But this was simply too shocking of a video not to share.

 

[Dave70968]

IA found he'd done nothing wrong, and a jury acquitted. I have read--but not confirmed--that the jury was not allowed to see the video, but had it described to them. I have also read that the officer's rifle was inscribed with "You're f*cked now," (would that be an issue rifle, or his own?), but that was kept from the jury as being too prejudicial.

 

[davek]

I watched this last night. Sickening. Yes, the motion made by Shaver near the end could definitely be taken as reaching for a gun. But the the actions taken by the officer earlier, after Shaver was face down on the floor in full submission, created a situation that led to the totally unnecessary death of Shaver.

If this is the way Mesa officers are trained to act there is a problem there. If not - well I wasn't on the jury and didn't hear the testimony - but based on the video alone if I was a juror I would have voted to convict the officer second degree murder.

 

[Frederick]

IA found he'd done nothing wrong, and a jury acquitted. I have read--but not confirmed--that the jury was not allowed to see the video, but had it described to them. I have also read that the officer's rifle was inscribed with "You're f*cked now," (would that be an issue rifle, or his own?), but that was kept from the jury as being too prejudicial.

Not allowed to see the video?

If they had, I bet he would have been sitting in prison for life.

 

[DRC458]

I don't see a video in the OP. Problem on my end?

 

[Frederick]

I don't see a video in the OP. Problem on my end?

No, i just think liveleak doesn't like to cooperate with OKshooters.

 

[DRC458]

No, i just think liveleak doesn't like to cooperate with OKshooters.

Thanks. Looks totally unjustified to me, but I didn't see/hear all the evidence.

 

[Frederick]

Thanks. Looks totally unjustified to me, but I didn't see/hear all the evidence.

I wonder how they described the video to the jury, and if it was described in an accurate way. from what i could tell, it seems like the officer who issued those instructions should never have been a police officer in the first place.

His behaviour was reprehensible, and he escalated the situation instead of deescalating. they basically murdered this guy. at least from my POV. it would be interesting to see what the resident LEOs think of the situation.

 

[DRC458]

I wonder how they described the video to the jury, and if it was described in an accurate way. from what i could tell, it seems like the officer who issued those instructions should never have been a police officer in the first place.

His behaviour was reprehensible, and he escalated the situation instead of deescalating. they basically murdered this guy. at least from my POV. it would be interesting to see what the resident LEOs think of the situation.

Agreed. I wonder what was going through the minds of the other officers on the scene?

 

[Frederick]

Agreed. I wonder what was going through the minds of the other officers on the scene?

They were probably getting hyped up by the instructions and constant death threats. I mean, they went in there like a death squad. your SGT acting with that sort of behaviour had to have an effect on the officers under him.