ADVERTISEMENT

Another not guilty

Duck_walk

Well-Known Member
Oct 17, 2002
23,081
4,231
113
Check out @ShaunKing’s Tweet:

According to a police report, Daniel Shaver, a pest-control worker and resident of Granbury, Texas, had been staying at a Mesa La Quinta Inn on business. He invited two acquaintances to his room for drinks. There he showed them a scoped air rifle he was using to exterminate birds inside grocery stores. At one point the gun was pointed outside his hotel window, prompting a witness to notify the front desk; the police were immediately called. Upon arrival, police gave Shaver and his acquaintances detailed orders for various minutes, with frequent admonitions that failing to comply with them would get them shot. Eventually, Shaver was ordered to crawl on the floor towards them. While complying with their request, Shaver, who was intoxicated and could be heard sobbing, begging officers, "Please don't shoot," made several hand motions towards his waist, apparently to pull his shorts up. An officer by the name of Philip Brailsford agressively yelled at Shaver that if he did anything whatsoever that deviated from his instructions to keep his left leg over his right leg and crawl towards the accused officer, he would shoot him and he probably wouldn’t survive. This is notated in the body cam footage that was released showing the officer followed through with his threat. In what can be seen as Shaver begging for the officer NOT to shoot in what looks like Shaver losing balance while he is being forced to crawl, he is killed and never even attended to in the brief video footage.

When Shaver reached for his waist again, Brailsford yelled “Don't!” before shooting Shaver five times in the back and neck with an AR-15 rifle. Shaver was unarmed.[1][2]
 
I'm not sure what is more impressive

1) shooting an unarmed, crying man

2) can't use a f'ing key card to open a door
 
I'm not sure what is more impressive

1) shooting an unarmed, crying man

2) can't use a f'ing key card to open a door

The kid did look like a hell of a threat......
Nothing like having a guy point an AR15 at you while screaming instructions like a tough guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wccards21
The kid did look like a hell of a threat......
Nothing like having a guy point an AR15 at you while screaming instructions like a tough guy.
Without knowing the full details of the case, this at the very least looks like gross negligence on behalf of the officer that should lead at minimum to manslaughter charges. Instead I see that he was charged, but acquitted of, second degree murder. These instances are sad. I can't fathom being in the position of a police officer daily where their lives are literally on the line and making a mistake could mean something like this happening. It really is a thankless job. However, it doesn't excuse something like this happening. Why couldn't this man have been detained once he was on the ground with his hands out? At that point he could have been searched and questioned. I don't understand why it was handled the way it was.
 
Without knowing the full details of the case, this at the very least looks like gross negligence on behalf of the officer that should lead at minimum to manslaughter charges. Instead I see that he was charged, but acquitted of, second degree murder. These instances are sad. I can't fathom being in the position of a police officer daily where their lives are literally on the line and making a mistake could mean something like this happening. It really is a thankless job. However, it doesn't excuse something like this happening. Why couldn't this man have been detained once he was on the ground with his hands out? At that point he could have been searched and questioned. I don't understand why it was handled the way it was.
Agree. It's a tough spot

But come on. You've got back up. You've got an assault rifle pointed at his head. Handcuff him, zip-tie him, taser.....anything other than pull the trigger on a grown man crawling and crying
 
  • Like
Reactions: goinlong
Down deep this guy wanted to shoot someone. Bottom line.
mesa4n-2-web.jpg
 
The kid did look like a hell of a threat......
Nothing like having a guy point an AR15 at you while screaming instructions like a tough guy.
Well when the call you are responding to is for a man pointing a rifle out of a window I would think when the guy won't comply with your repeated instructions and reaches for his waist you shoot him

I cop in that situation is always going to lean toward shooting and killing the guy. Cops are just doing a job and want to go home to their wife and kids at the end of the shift
 
The judge did not allow jurors to hear about an etching on the dust cover of the rifle Brailsford used to shoot Shaver, which said "You're f--ked," because he felt it was prejudicial.
It would have been prejudicial. It had no bearing on the facts of the case. What happened and the response to those events are all that is pertinent.
Was it necessary to kill the guy? Probably not but, he was justified to do so based on the events and circumstances.
 
It would have been prejudicial. It had no bearing on the facts of the case. What happened and the response to those events are all that is pertinent.
Was it necessary to kill the guy? Probably not but, he was justified to do so based on the events and circumstances.

In your warped mind maybe.
 
In your warped mind maybe.
No according to the law.

In Missouri every private citizen is justified in using deadly force if he fears for the life or safety of himself or another person. So if someone twice your size is threatening you and he makes you fear for your life or safety it's perfectly legal for you to kill the guy
 
No according to the law.

In Missouri every private citizen is justified in using deadly force if he fears for the life or safety of himself or another person. So if someone twice your size is threatening you and he makes you fear for your life or safety it's perfectly legal for you to kill the guy
In Missouri , abortion is legal too but that doesn't make it right.
 
No according to the law.

In Missouri every private citizen is justified in using deadly force if he fears for the life or safety of himself or another person. So if someone twice your size is threatening you and he makes you fear for your life or safety it's perfectly legal for you to kill the guy

Yea. A guy crawling and crying like a baby is a real threat. Why are you guys such P*$$!÷$? Did that guy look scary? Good grief.
 
Yes. Have u not been paying attention.

So you've been through the Police Academy and know what the training is? Or are you just repeating what you've read on Twitter since that's the best source for valid info in the world?

Here's a suggestion for you. Go to the police precinct in the worst area near you. Request for a ride along on a few Friday/Saturday nights on the 10pm - 6am shift. You will have to sign a paper that says if you die, it isn't their fault, though. You don't get a weapon but if your officer is a nice guy, he might let you carry the flashlight. Do that 5 or 6 times and let us all know about your experiences.
 
I posted an article just a few days ago about two supreme court decisions and how they have led to more policemen not even being charged for shooting unarmed citizens.

The kid had a pellet gun in his room used to kill birds in stores. He wasnt armed in the hall. He didnt have a weapon in his shorts. He tried to follow instructions of a screaming lunatic. He died innocent and in a state of terror. If you want to defend that, I guess I will see you in hell.
 
So you've been through the Police Academy and know what the training is? Or are you just repeating what you've read on Twitter since that's the best source for valid info in the world?

Open mouth insert foot. Bahahahahaha I can't believe a trumpster would say that.
 
Well when the call you are responding to is for a man pointing a rifle out of a window I would think when the guy won't comply with your repeated instructions and reaches for his waist you shoot him

I cop in that situation is always going to lean toward shooting and killing the guy. Cops are just doing a job and want to go home to their wife and kids at the end of the shift

I have family members who are officers and they don't agree with how this was totally handled by the officer and goes against what they say is your training. Most agree once he cleared the door and was out in the hall way that they should have gone up and cuffed him there, there was no reason to have the man continue to crawl towards you and by doing so you were allowing him to control the situation. They say you are taught to cuff a suspect as soon as possible and this guy did not which was only inviting trouble by prolonging an uncontrolled encounter with a presumed armed suspect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goinlong
I have family members who are officers and they don't agree with how this was totally handled by the officer and goes against what they say is your training. Most agree once he cleared the door and was out in the hall way that they should have gone up and cuffed him there, there was no reason to have the man continue to crawl towards you and by doing so you were allowing him to control the situation. They say you are taught to cuff a suspect as soon as possible and this guy did not which was only inviting trouble by prolonging an uncontrolled encounter with a presumed armed suspect.
You don't even need training for this. It's common sense. You've got them at gun point, and they've followed the orders (when you could understand him). There are more cops than suspects on the ground

Cuff them, search them them remove them from the area. Instead he just decided to remove him from life due to him being a coward that is incompetent at his job...... and the justice system said that it was cool
 
I posted an article just a few days ago about two supreme court decisions and how they have led to more policemen not even being charged for shooting unarmed citizens.

The kid had a pellet gun in his room used to kill birds in stores. He wasnt armed in the hall. He didnt have a weapon in his shorts. He tried to follow instructions of a screaming lunatic. He died innocent and in a state of terror. If you want to defend that, I guess I will see you in hell.

Nice attempt at diversion. You stated that they receive training to shoot first. I just want you to defend that statement. You have been through or have been present when that training was done? If not, then you have no idea what training they are receiving and are just making a statement without basis.

And, just for you since you can't answer a straight-forward question but I can. No, I am not defending what happened there as it appears from this video that something went horribly wrong here. I just want you to defend your statement of how you determined the exact training that police are receiving.
 
Open mouth insert foot. Bahahahahaha I can't believe a trumpster would say that.

Who's a trumpster? You know me? You know what I'm about and what I do? If so, let me know where we have met.

I'm just asking someone to defend a statement they are presenting as fact. Same as you would like others to do.
 
Is the training today exactly as it was in the 70s and 80s?

There was no diversion in my post.
We have had this discussion over and over on this board. I am not going to rehash research again and show you comments from policemen from the past. I dont owe you crap. Google it. Read it yourself. The training is very different. Policemen pull their guns far more often than they did 30 years ago. Why? Because they can get away with it. How? Read the supreme court decisions.

Back in the day if a cop shot someone who turned out to not be armed they were screwed. Now a cop can shoot a guy for scratching his arse and say he feared for his life because he reached to his waist band.
Are you telling me they arent trained to do that? And not just shoot. Shoot to kill.

This is what I meant by shoot first. I wish you were this literal with your boy Trump.
Ignored.
 
Who's a trumpster? You know me? You know what I'm about and what I do? If so, let me know where we have met.

I'm just asking someone to defend a statement they are presenting as fact. Same as you would like others to do.
"Or are you just repeating what you've read on Twitter since that's the best source for valid info in the world?"

This is trumps way of communicating. Don't condemn someone for calling you out on such a comment.
 
Is the training today exactly as it was in the 70s and 80s?

There was no diversion in my post.
We have had this discussion over and over on this board. I am not going to rehash research again and show you comments from policemen from the past. I dont owe you crap. Google it. Read it yourself. The training is very different. Policemen pull their guns far more often than they did 30 years ago. Why? Because they can get away with it. How? Read the supreme court decisions.

Back in the day if a cop shot someone who turned out to not be armed they were screwed. Now a cop can shoot a guy for scratching his arse and say he feared for his life because he reached to his waist band.
Are you telling me they arent trained to do that? And not just shoot. Shoot to kill.

This is what I meant by shoot first. I wish you were this literal with your boy Trump.
Ignored.

You are such a sad little insecure person. SB said nothing that should lead you to ignore him.

Why can you not digest a different point of view?

Why do you want to erroneously condemn police training because one cop does it wrong?

Do you realize your unapologetic head in the sand stance hurts your narrative?

Why do I respect 3R, wcowherd, and NM way more than you, even though we disagree about almost everything?

Let me count the ways.

Duck, you give liberals a bad name....... YOU are why we have President Trump..... Congrats
 
"Or are you just repeating what you've read on Twitter since that's the best source for valid info in the world?"

This is trumps way of communicating. Don't condemn someone for calling you out on such a comment.

And where did I say that I thought Trump's Twitter stuff was OK? Or were you just making assumptions about me again?? And Duck should be the last person to call out anyone about Twitter. 80% of his posts are Twitter reposts. Since we're making assumptions, I'm going to make the assumption that he only knows what he sees on Twitter.

For the record, Trump needs to quit all the Twitter crap. I think most of it is asinine.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bullitpdq68
Is the training today exactly as it was in the 70s and 80s?

There was no diversion in my post.
We have had this discussion over and over on this board. I am not going to rehash research again and show you comments from policemen from the past. I dont owe you crap. Google it. Read it yourself. The training is very different. Policemen pull their guns far more often than they did 30 years ago. Why? Because they can get away with it. How? Read the supreme court decisions.

Back in the day if a cop shot someone who turned out to not be armed they were screwed. Now a cop can shoot a guy for scratching his arse and say he feared for his life because he reached to his waist band.
Are you telling me they arent trained to do that? And not just shoot. Shoot to kill.

This is what I meant by shoot first. I wish you were this literal with your boy Trump.
Ignored.

Ignored? Really? Going to take your ball and go home? That's it, run away and hide when someone challenges you to back up your statements of "fact".

My boy Trump? Where did I ever say he was "my boy"? Again, it's really easy for you to make (incorrect) assumptions.

I may, (and I say "may" because I don't know you and what experiences you have had), have a little more experience in this area than you do. My brother has been an officer for almost 30 years. I know exactly what their training is (at least at his Academy) and I also know exactly how things have changed over the past 30 years. I have spent MANY nights riding with officers in some of the worst parts of a large city. I have spent many hours talking with officers that actually are working in the streets. I would challenge that maybe my info is a little bit better than yours, at least specifically to one city. But, you're calling out ALL police so I would only need one example to prove your statement as false.

But then again, you're not reading this because you are the only one with an opinion of any value.

Have a nice life and I hope you remain happy and safe.
 
Is the training today exactly as it was in the 70s and 80s?

There was no diversion in my post.
We have had this discussion over and over on this board. I am not going to rehash research again and show you comments from policemen from the past. I dont owe you crap. Google it. Read it yourself. The training is very different. Policemen pull their guns far more often than they did 30 years ago. Why? Because they can get away with it. How? Read the supreme court decisions.

Back in the day if a cop shot someone who turned out to not be armed they were screwed. Now a cop can shoot a guy for scratching his arse and say he feared for his life because he reached to his waist band.
Are you telling me they arent trained to do that? And not just shoot. Shoot to kill.

This is what I meant by shoot first. I wish you were this literal with your boy Trump.
Ignored.
Maybe that's because cops get shot a lot more now than they did in the 70's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MIZZOU71 and sbdude
Maybe that's because cops get shot a lot more now than they did in the 70's.
There’s not good evidence this is the case. The death rate is very clearly lower based upon national reporting. There’s a better case to be made that cops are safer today than they were in the 1970s than what is in your post.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT