Mesa AZ PIG COP MURDER: Daniel Shaver seen crawling, begging in disturbing video as MURDERED!

[BULLDOG]

If someone tells you "Do not put your hands down for any reason or I will shoot you" and you put your hand down toward your waist, and you get shot, my sympathy button fails to be pushed.

You saw the video. The guy was so scared till he was shaking and begging. Pulling up his pants was just an unthinking reaction.

 

[Freewill]

Force Science News #178: Important new reaction-time study addresses what’s “reasonable” 
in armed-suspect encounters & more

CONCLUSIONS. “Police officers have a legal right to use force, including lethal force, when it is reasonable to do so,” the researchers state. “An officer may shoot when there is an imminent risk of harm to self or others, or to stop someone who poses a danger to others if allowed to escape….



“There is a perception amongst some community members that officers are too quick to shoot those who only appear to pose a threat…. There are people who seem to believe that the ‘reasonable’ officer should wait until a suspect with a gun begins to use the gun against the officer before the officer utilizes lethal force. [But] would waiting be reasonable in situations where the suspect has his weapon in hand but not aimed?”



That’s the critical question Blair’s study addresses. “As our findings show, most officers can’t fire faster than a suspect with a weapon in hand, even if it is not aimed at the officer,” his team writes. Consequently, “we think that an officer who decided to shoot [in the kinds of situations tested] meets the legal definition of reasonableness,” given the “close range of the encounter, the lack of available cover, the failure of the suspect to comply with multiple warnings, and the data” collected.



The researchers stress, however, that they “do not believe that the findings support” automatically shooting “everyone with a gun” or “everyone with a gun who does not comply.” Armed encounters vary in their details, and “the individual officer must consider the totality of circumstances” in choosing a fitting response, including whether issuing commands is feasible or desirable before firing.



The researchers believe that certain training implications are clear from their findings. First, they support having officers participate in scenarios similar to those they used to convey “a better understanding of the dynamics involved” in armed confrontations and to “help correct inaccurate beliefs about shooting ability.” Also they believe training should “teach officers how to mitigate the dangers posed by armed suspects” through such means as distance and cover.



They hope that their findings “will help officers, and those who judge the actions of officers, to make more informed decisions about the reasonableness of officers’ actions” in deadly encounters.



A full report on the study has been accepted for publication later this year in the peer-reviewed journal Police Quarterly. Publication can be tracked at: http://pqx.sagepub.com.

Not true they have no right to KILL and indoctrination has taught the public they have that right. They are here to SERVE and PROTECT they work for us.

THey can lie and say they felt threatened c'mon you think these cops don't use that line to get out of killing ppl. it happens constantly.

And you know that the officer lied? Have you ever seen demonstration of reaction times and how long a person has to react to a threat? If it were me I would be sure not to fall on the side of waiting too long and getting shot. Obey the law, obey the cops, no matter how much you hate them, and you will be OK. Run away, act suspicious and move in ways that seem a threat and things might not turn out well for you.

I said these Officers can LIE and even when you see what you see with your own two lies just because a law is a law DOESN'T make it right nor legal.

Our police have been militarized , they indoctrinated you zombies into accepting this type of behavior ...

Police never use to just shoot the fk out of people where the hell have you bee planet fantasy....

Or were you born ten years ago.

With over an estimated 80,000 SWAT raids per year, an increase in fatal (and often-times unnecessary) police shootings, and a routine dependence on militarized weapons and vehicles, local police departments are beginning to act like and resemble a standing army.

The American police force, however, is not a branch of the military, nor is it a private security force for the reigning political faction. It is an aggregation of the countless local units that exist for a sole purpose: to serve and protect the citizens of each and every American community. In recent years, however, there has been an increasing militarization of the police. It has not occurred suddenly, in a single precinct; it cannot be traced back to a single leader or event—rather, the pattern is so subtle that most American citizens are hardly even aware of it. Little by little, police authority has expanded, one weapon after another has been added to the police arsenal, and one exception after another has been made to the standards that have historically restrained police authority. When analyzed as a whole, this trend toward militarization is undeniable, and it is one that could have serious implications for American liberty if left unchecked.

The Rutherford Institute

Our Recent Work in Police State

Rutherford Institute Sues Police Over 'Broken Taillight' Traffic Stop

It is easier to sit behind a keyboard and look at these situations and say the police over reacted. But as the supreme court has ruled it is the perception of danger that is important, not the fact that there is actual danger.

Why does someone act like this guy did when the cops showed up? Probably drugs or he is just a feakin' fool. Never the less he is acting in a way that is not normal, that alone can be perceived as a threat. Waiting until you see a gun may turn out to be a death sentence and that may be why you hear of armed police being shot, without drawing their weapon, almost as much as you hear of unarmed people being shot by cops.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Force Science News #178: Important new reaction-time study addresses what’s “reasonable” 
in armed-suspect encounters & more

CONCLUSIONS. “Police officers have a legal right to use force, including lethal force, when it is reasonable to do so,” the researchers state. “An officer may shoot when there is an imminent risk of harm to self or others, or to stop someone who poses a danger to others if allowed to escape….



“There is a perception amongst some community members that officers are too quick to shoot those who only appear to pose a threat…. There are people who seem to believe that the ‘reasonable’ officer should wait until a suspect with a gun begins to use the gun against the officer before the officer utilizes lethal force. [But] would waiting be reasonable in situations where the suspect has his weapon in hand but not aimed?”



That’s the critical question Blair’s study addresses. “As our findings show, most officers can’t fire faster than a suspect with a weapon in hand, even if it is not aimed at the officer,” his team writes. Consequently, “we think that an officer who decided to shoot [in the kinds of situations tested] meets the legal definition of reasonableness,” given the “close range of the encounter, the lack of available cover, the failure of the suspect to comply with multiple warnings, and the data” collected.



The researchers stress, however, that they “do not believe that the findings support” automatically shooting “everyone with a gun” or “everyone with a gun who does not comply.” Armed encounters vary in their details, and “the individual officer must consider the totality of circumstances” in choosing a fitting response, including whether issuing commands is feasible or desirable before firing.



The researchers believe that certain training implications are clear from their findings. First, they support having officers participate in scenarios similar to those they used to convey “a better understanding of the dynamics involved” in armed confrontations and to “help correct inaccurate beliefs about shooting ability.” Also they believe training should “teach officers how to mitigate the dangers posed by armed suspects” through such means as distance and cover.



They hope that their findings “will help officers, and those who judge the actions of officers, to make more informed decisions about the reasonableness of officers’ actions” in deadly encounters.



A full report on the study has been accepted for publication later this year in the peer-reviewed journal Police Quarterly. Publication can be tracked at: http://pqx.sagepub.com.

Absolutely unreasonable. Why? An armed citizen shooting someone like that would be murder.

Cops have a license to kill. They can kill anyone, anywhere, and get away with it.

Brailsford WANTED to kill someone that day.

 

[Freewill]

Not that it will do any good.

video of police reacting to a threat - Bing video

The video might have some bearing on this case if the guy was scared shitless, and his pants were falling off. The cop murdered the guy for no good reason. You don't have to admit it, but don't waste your time trying to justify the murder.

He was found innocent by a jury that heard all the evidence. I am not defending the police, I find a lot of them to be arrogant aholes but that doesn't mean I am giving up on mankind to the point where I think anyone would shoot an unarmed man just for the fun of it.

Remember one thing: Perception is Reality. What you see in that video may actually be entirely different than what the police officer saw that day.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If it was on purpose this Cop should fry in the goddamn chair for his crime.

 

[BULLDOG]

Force Science News #178: Important new reaction-time study addresses what’s “reasonable” 
in armed-suspect encounters & more

CONCLUSIONS. “Police officers have a legal right to use force, including lethal force, when it is reasonable to do so,” the researchers state. “An officer may shoot when there is an imminent risk of harm to self or others, or to stop someone who poses a danger to others if allowed to escape….



“There is a perception amongst some community members that officers are too quick to shoot those who only appear to pose a threat…. There are people who seem to believe that the ‘reasonable’ officer should wait until a suspect with a gun begins to use the gun against the officer before the officer utilizes lethal force. [But] would waiting be reasonable in situations where the suspect has his weapon in hand but not aimed?”



That’s the critical question Blair’s study addresses. “As our findings show, most officers can’t fire faster than a suspect with a weapon in hand, even if it is not aimed at the officer,” his team writes. Consequently, “we think that an officer who decided to shoot [in the kinds of situations tested] meets the legal definition of reasonableness,” given the “close range of the encounter, the lack of available cover, the failure of the suspect to comply with multiple warnings, and the data” collected.



The researchers stress, however, that they “do not believe that the findings support” automatically shooting “everyone with a gun” or “everyone with a gun who does not comply.” Armed encounters vary in their details, and “the individual officer must consider the totality of circumstances” in choosing a fitting response, including whether issuing commands is feasible or desirable before firing.



The researchers believe that certain training implications are clear from their findings. First, they support having officers participate in scenarios similar to those they used to convey “a better understanding of the dynamics involved” in armed confrontations and to “help correct inaccurate beliefs about shooting ability.” Also they believe training should “teach officers how to mitigate the dangers posed by armed suspects” through such means as distance and cover.



They hope that their findings “will help officers, and those who judge the actions of officers, to make more informed decisions about the reasonableness of officers’ actions” in deadly encounters.



A full report on the study has been accepted for publication later this year in the peer-reviewed journal Police Quarterly. Publication can be tracked at: http://pqx.sagepub.com.

Not true they have no right to KILL and indoctrination has taught the public they have that right. They are here to SERVE and PROTECT they work for us.

THey can lie and say they felt threatened c'mon you think these cops don't use that line to get out of killing ppl. it happens constantly.

And you know that the officer lied? Have you ever seen demonstration of reaction times and how long a person has to react to a threat? If it were me I would be sure not to fall on the side of waiting too long and getting shot. Obey the law, obey the cops, no matter how much you hate them, and you will be OK. Run away, act suspicious and move in ways that seem a threat and things might not turn out well for you.

I said these Officers can LIE and even when you see what you see with your own two lies just because a law is a law DOESN'T make it right nor legal.

Our police have been militarized , they indoctrinated you zombies into accepting this type of behavior ...

Police never use to just shoot the fk out of people where the hell have you bee planet fantasy....

Or were you born ten years ago.

With over an estimated 80,000 SWAT raids per year, an increase in fatal (and often-times unnecessary) police shootings, and a routine dependence on militarized weapons and vehicles, local police departments are beginning to act like and resemble a standing army.

The American police force, however, is not a branch of the military, nor is it a private security force for the reigning political faction. It is an aggregation of the countless local units that exist for a sole purpose: to serve and protect the citizens of each and every American community. In recent years, however, there has been an increasing militarization of the police. It has not occurred suddenly, in a single precinct; it cannot be traced back to a single leader or event—rather, the pattern is so subtle that most American citizens are hardly even aware of it. Little by little, police authority has expanded, one weapon after another has been added to the police arsenal, and one exception after another has been made to the standards that have historically restrained police authority. When analyzed as a whole, this trend toward militarization is undeniable, and it is one that could have serious implications for American liberty if left unchecked.

The Rutherford Institute

Our Recent Work in Police State

Rutherford Institute Sues Police Over 'Broken Taillight' Traffic Stop

It is easier to sit behind a keyboard and look at these situations and say the police over reacted. But as the supreme court has ruled it is the perception of danger that is important, not the fact that there is actual danger.

Why does someone act like this guy did when the cops showed up? Probably drugs or he is just a feakin' fool. Never the less he is acting in a way that is not normal, that alone can be perceived as a threat. Waiting until you see a gun may turn out to be a death sentence and that may be why you hear of armed police being shot, without drawing their weapon, almost as much as you hear of unarmed people being shot by cops.

Oh I don't know. How normal is it to have a gun pointed at you and have someone threaten to kill you several times? You think it might have been because the cop as pointing a gun at him and threatening to kill him? I'm pretty sure most of us would act the same way.

 

[Jarlaxle]

As damning as that video appears, I trust the jury system.

Then you're a fool.

The same jury system that found Kate Steinle's murderer not guilty.

They see every piece of evidence. They hear testimony. Then they decide.

No, they see carefully-selected pieces of evidence, especially when a prosecutor torpedoes his own case to protect a bent cop.

 

[Freewill]

Force Science News #178: Important new reaction-time study addresses what’s “reasonable” 
in armed-suspect encounters & more

CONCLUSIONS. “Police officers have a legal right to use force, including lethal force, when it is reasonable to do so,” the researchers state. “An officer may shoot when there is an imminent risk of harm to self or others, or to stop someone who poses a danger to others if allowed to escape….



“There is a perception amongst some community members that officers are too quick to shoot those who only appear to pose a threat…. There are people who seem to believe that the ‘reasonable’ officer should wait until a suspect with a gun begins to use the gun against the officer before the officer utilizes lethal force. [But] would waiting be reasonable in situations where the suspect has his weapon in hand but not aimed?”



That’s the critical question Blair’s study addresses. “As our findings show, most officers can’t fire faster than a suspect with a weapon in hand, even if it is not aimed at the officer,” his team writes. Consequently, “we think that an officer who decided to shoot [in the kinds of situations tested] meets the legal definition of reasonableness,” given the “close range of the encounter, the lack of available cover, the failure of the suspect to comply with multiple warnings, and the data” collected.



The researchers stress, however, that they “do not believe that the findings support” automatically shooting “everyone with a gun” or “everyone with a gun who does not comply.” Armed encounters vary in their details, and “the individual officer must consider the totality of circumstances” in choosing a fitting response, including whether issuing commands is feasible or desirable before firing.



The researchers believe that certain training implications are clear from their findings. First, they support having officers participate in scenarios similar to those they used to convey “a better understanding of the dynamics involved” in armed confrontations and to “help correct inaccurate beliefs about shooting ability.” Also they believe training should “teach officers how to mitigate the dangers posed by armed suspects” through such means as distance and cover.



They hope that their findings “will help officers, and those who judge the actions of officers, to make more informed decisions about the reasonableness of officers’ actions” in deadly encounters.



A full report on the study has been accepted for publication later this year in the peer-reviewed journal Police Quarterly. Publication can be tracked at: http://pqx.sagepub.com.

Absolutely unreasonable. Why? An armed citizen shooting someone like that would be murder.

Cops have a license to kill. They can kill anyone, anywhere, and get away with it.

Brailsford WANTED to kill someone that day.

That is totally not true, one was just sentenced to 20 years in jail, how long do you think he will last?

In situations where there is perception of danger, whether you see it in a video or not, the police have the right and obligation to protect themselves and waiting to see a gun may be way too late.

 

[Freewill]

As damning as that video appears, I trust the jury system.

Then you're a fool.

The same jury system that found Kate Steinle's murderer not guilty.

They see every piece of evidence. They hear testimony. Then they decide.

No, they see carefully-selected pieces of evidence, especially when a prosecutor torpedoes his own case to protect a bent cop.

And yet people find them guilty by seeing only a video. The prosecutor's job is to present the evidence that proves guilt.

 

[saveliberty]

Military personnel are trained to shoot when they see a weapon. Not when they think there might be a weapon. Perhaps training and policy needs to be revisited. Video can be misleading, but that looked like murder to me.

 

[airplanemechanic]

If someone tells you "Do not put your hands down for any reason or I will shoot you" and you put your hand down toward your waist, and you get shot, my sympathy button fails to be pushed.

You saw the video. The guy was so scared till he was shaking and begging. Pulling up his pants was just an unthinking reaction.

A time like that is not a time to "unthink".

 

[Zander]

Not that it will do any good.

video of police reacting to a threat - Bing video

The video might have some bearing on this case if the guy was scared shitless, and his pants were falling off. The cop murdered the guy for no good reason. You don't have to admit it, but don't waste your time trying to justify the murder.

Were you on the jury? No?

As damning as that video appears, I trust the jury system.

Then you're a fool.

The same jury system that found Kate Steinle's murderer not guilty.

They see every piece of evidence. They hear testimony. Then they decide.

No, they see carefully-selected pieces of evidence, especially when a prosecutor torpedoes his own case to protect a bent cop.

The Jury System is the worst system of justice, except for all the others.

 

[BULLDOG]

If someone tells you "Do not put your hands down for any reason or I will shoot you" and you put your hand down toward your waist, and you get shot, my sympathy button fails to be pushed.

You saw the video. The guy was so scared till he was shaking and begging. Pulling up his pants was just an unthinking reaction.

A time like that is not a time to "unthink".

He was too scared to think clearly. You can't see that in the video?

 

[Freewill]

Military personnel are trained to shoot when they see a weapon. Not when they think there might be a weapon. Perhaps training and policy needs to be revisited. Video can be misleading, but that looked like murder to me.

Training is the key. The more training the less likely there will be an accidental shooting, in my opinion. But I will be damn if I am going to watch a video and convince myself I know what was running through a police officer's head. Perception is Reality.

 

[airplanemechanic]

He was too scared to think clearly. You can't see that in the video?

No, what I see is a moron who can't follow directions he's given. He was told to keep his hands up and moments later he put them down. He's an idiot.

If you can't think clearly when an AR-15 is pointed at you then I don't know when you can.

 

[Freewill]

Military personnel are trained to shoot when they see a weapon. Not when they think there might be a weapon. Perhaps training and policy needs to be revisited. Video can be misleading, but that looked like murder to me.

Maybe that is why the Fort Hood shooter had so much success. Don't really know.

 

[BULLDOG]

Military personnel are trained to shoot when they see a weapon. Not when they think there might be a weapon. Perhaps training and policy needs to be revisited. Video can be misleading, but that looked like murder to me.

Training is the key. The more training the less likely there will be an accidental shooting, in my opinion. But I will be damn if I am going to watch a video and convince myself I know what was running through a police officer's head. Perception is Reality.

Of course you know what was going through his head KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL

 

[saveliberty]

Military personnel are trained to shoot when they see a weapon. Not when they think there might be a weapon. Perhaps training and policy needs to be revisited. Video can be misleading, but that looked like murder to me.

Training is the key. The more training the less likely there will be an accidental shooting, in my opinion. But I will be damn if I am going to watch a video and convince myself I know what was running through a police officer's head. Perception is Reality.

I agree you have to accept the jury has more information than we do. However, key evidence can be thrown out by good lawyers too. Also, police officers are usually given the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Asshole coulda been done cuffed him and stopped pointing gun at people.

That's wrong, and that man will pay for that sooner or later.

 

[Freewill]

He was too scared to think clearly. You can't see that in the video?

No, what I see is a moron who can't follow directions he's given. He was told to keep his hands up and moments later he put them down. He's an idiot.

If you can't think clearly when an AR-15 is pointed at you then I don't know when you can.

A rational non-threatening person complies.