The cop was acquitted this morning of all wrong doing in what has struck me as the most horrific police shooting I've seen. I'm absolutely speechless. I am so appalled and disgusted.

https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/939014159726870530?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

tim94501 said:

---

The cop was acquitted this morning of all wrong doing in what has struck me as the most horrific police shooting I've seen. I'm absolutely speechless. I am so appalled and disgusted.

https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/939014159726870530?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

---

Horrific. A huge travesty of justice (again). As horrible as that video is, the scariest thing is that psychopath with a badge is going to be back out on the street terrorizing and murdering as will others like him, thinking the system endorses their evil--and apparently it does.

Chilling video, that's absolutely awful this cop was acquitted.

Were you appalled when OJ was acquitted? When Angela Davis was acquitted? When the second and third juries in the trials of Huey Newton were unable to reach a verdict (both hung 11-1 for conviction)? When the jury acquitted the cops who beat Rodney King?
I was horrified by all these verdicts. They were basically the result of a jury being very sympathetic to the defendant. That is what happens when a very able defense attorney twists an obvious situation into a travesty of justice through distortion, emotional appeals etc.
Jury trials are both a strength and a weakness of the criminal justice system.
What changes are you proposing?

R U kidding me? This cop executed that man for no reason. Should be #Alllivesmatternow.

CAL6371 said:

---

Were you appalled when OJ was acquitted? When Angela Davis was acquitted? When the second and third juries in the trials of Huey Newton were unable to reach a verdict (both hung 11-1 for conviction)? When the jury acquitted the cops who beat Rodney King?
I was horrified by all these verdicts. They were basically the result of a jury being very sympathetic to the defendant. That is what happens when a very able defense attorney twists an obvious situation into a travesty of justice through distortion, emotional appeals etc.
Jury trials are both a strength and a weakness of the criminal justice system.
What changes are you proposing?

---

I was foreman on a murder trial where the prosecution provided a very flimsy case without any witnesses let alone motive or weapon. I don't know anything about this case, but he must've had a heluuva defense lawyer. That being said, comparing this to OJ or Angela Davis is a reach. I'll have to read more coverage before I comment, but it is amazing he'd get off based on this footage. Full disclosure, I'm still recovering from the brutal images from the trial I served on so I didn't want to see the police fire his weapon. Really, really, sad.

CAL6371 said:

---

Were you appalled when OJ was acquitted? When Angela Davis was acquitted? When the second and third juries in the trials of Huey Newton were unable to reach a verdict (both hung 11-1 for conviction)? When the jury acquitted the cops who beat Rodney King?
I was horrified by all these verdicts. They were basically the result of a jury being very sympathetic to the defendant. That is what happens when a very able defense attorney twists an obvious situation into a travesty of justice through distortion, emotional appeals etc.
Jury trials are both a strength and a weakness of the criminal justice system.
What changes are you proposing?

---

The gun the officer used to shoot the guy was etched with the words "You're ****ed!" Goes to the guy's attitude. Not that we needed that as he was a power mad ******* through the whole tape. He seemed to feel he was justified in shooting the guy if the guy didn't follow every one of the ridiculously confusing instructions.

The thing is with this one is the entire interaction was on camera. At least with Rodney King, they claimed other stuff happened before the footage (don't get me wrong, that verdict was ridiculous). We saw the whole encounter. As I said elsewhere, I'm normally reluctant to criticize juries because we don't know what was presented, but in this case we saw the whole thing. And to be clear, they acquitted. Not hung jury. Geez. Either the DA is terrible at picking juries or that jury pool is crap.

CAL6371 said:

---

Were you appalled when OJ was acquitted? When Angela Davis was acquitted? When the second and third juries in the trials of Huey Newton were unable to reach a verdict (both hung 11-1 for conviction)? When the jury acquitted the cops who beat Rodney King?
I was horrified by all these verdicts. They were basically the result of a jury being very sympathetic to the defendant. That is what happens when a very able defense attorney twists an obvious situation into a travesty of justice through distortion, emotional appeals etc.
Jury trials are both a strength and a weakness of the criminal justice system.
What changes are you proposing?

---

I think that police officers and prosecutors work closely every day, so when the prosecutors and police are asked to police and prosecute police officers there is a potential conflict. This (abuse of power/murder under cover of a badge) has been going on forever, but now there is video documenting it. Still, no matter how blatant the video evidence, convictions are almost unheard of, or are ridiculously lenient.

There should be special federal prosecutors to investigate and potentially prosecute police officers who murder/violate our constitutional rights while being paid our tax dollars. It is not just murder, it is murder in our name, our government. It damages the confidence in our Constitution, in our country--worse than terrorism in my view.

calalumnus - Totally agree that this case cried out for a conviction of some form of homicide. It also illustrates how picking police officers needs to be vastly improved. A lot of people who are interested in the job are wrong for the job.
When I was in grad school, one of my professors was an ex-cop and a consultant to many police departments. Some people emphasize the fear an officer has as to whether he will go home in one piece at the end of the shift. My professor noted that more plumbers are killed on the job than cops (this was 1967-68), and that the most prevalent danger was cops self-destructing through alcohol or stress. It is a tough job.
The professor also noted that historically the police were call "peace officers" and that was turning into "law enforcement officers." The emphasis and change of language was significant - is your priority keeping the peace or enforcing the law? The Chief Parker approach has long been criticized and most medium to large California police agencies now follow the community police approach (no occupying army approach ala Parker and LAPD).
Your idea of US Attorneys prosecuting cops in state court is way off the mark. The US Attorney selects prosecutors on a very different basis than most DA's offices. When I was at Boalt the recruiter for the DOJ told me that they only visited two law schools west of the Mississippi - Boalt and Stanford. He later offered me a job at the US Attorney's office in DC. That is the only office that prosecutes street crimes because it covers the DC area. In the recent book about the DOJ - The Chicken**** Club - the author noted that the average line prosecutor in US Attorney's Offices has 0.3 trials per year. That is an absurd trial load - I used to prosecute at least 2-3 murder trials a year. Most of their cases involve fraud and complex paper cases. They do not practice in state courts and are the wrong agency to do that job.
When a DA has an office-wide conflict of interest they call on a neighboring DA's office or the California Attorney General to prosecute the case. However, most Deputy AGs can't try their way out of a paper bag (they do mostly appeals and civil suits). They even acknowledge that they are not trained to do trial work. I was once appointed a special Deputy AG for the purpose of handling the trial aspects of a writ of Habeus Corpus on a death penalty case. Incidentally, while we were doing the hearing, you could hear the jury for the officers who beat Rodney King screaming in jury room in the corner of the courtroom (it was very distracting to the witness whom I was questioning). The US Attorneys on rare occasions do prosecute cops in Federal court for violations of Federal civil rights laws and often do a good job.
Sorry for the length of the post,

When a policeman is responding to reports of a gunman, is holding a gun on you and repeatedly and explicitly tells you he'll shoot you if you don't follow his instructions the very LAST thing you do is move your hand behind your back like you are reaching into your waistband for a gun.

tequila4kapp said:

---

When a policeman is responding to reports of a gunman, is holding a gun on you and repeatedly and explicitly tells you he'll shoot you if you don't follow his instructions the very LAST thing you do is move your hand behind your back like you are reaching into your waistband for a gun.

---

The officer was never under any rational danger. What he was doing was creating a self-fulfilling prophecy wherein he would be justified in shooting the man by constantly creating a hostile situation instead of calming it down and focusing on securing him in handcuffs.

Quote:

---

instead of calming it down and focusing on securing him in handcuffs.

---

Exactly, the office escalated the situation with prolonged instructions. He wasn't in any immediate danger, there was no weapon drawn on him. With his own weapon drawn on the target, the other officers should have placed the man in handcuffs. This was murder and the justice system failed. Sick.

tequila4kapp said:

---

When a policeman is responding to reports of a gunman, is holding a gun on you and repeatedly and explicitly tells you he'll shoot you if you don't follow his instructions the very LAST thing you do is move your hand behind your back like you are reaching into your waistband for a gun.

---

When anyone, policeman or not, points a gun at your forehead and says if you blink, I'll blow your head off, you should do your best not to blink. That doesn't mean you deserve it if you blink and that the other guy is at fault.

With how the cop was twisting that guy around it was a pretty minor mistake to move his arm backwards. And the guy was still face down and not close to a position where he could fire a gun.

Are members of the public justified in shooting cops because they have a reasonable fear of being in danger?

tequila4kapp said:

---

When a policeman is responding to reports of a gunman, is holding a gun on you and repeatedly and explicitly tells you he'll shoot you if you don't follow his instructions the very LAST thing you do is move your hand behind your back like you are reaching into your waistband for a gun.

---

I've never heard of an officer making someone jump through hoops like that where the suspect was complying with all commands to get down on the ground, show his hands, cross his ankles a particular way, then get on his knees, then friggin' crawl towards him.

Mass shooters who verifiably killed scores of people have given themselves up with less hurdles then this poor inebriated fellow. With more than one officer on scene the situation was well in hand the moment the guy was face down, arms on his head.

I am not saying I love everything the cop did. The detailed demands were prone to simple mistakes. But reaching behind your back into a waistband is not a simple mistake. When he did that I literally thought he was going for a gun.

heartofthebear said:

---

Are members of the public justified in shooting cops because they have a reasonable fear of being in danger?

---

Talk to me the next time the police call for help and a member of the public goes into a life threatening situation to take care of it.

The issue here is that the officer escalated the tension far beyond what was necessary. The tension which caused him to pull the trigger quickly was self-created. It's clear from his tone that he was on a power trip. It's also clear from the words on this AR that he entered the situation with a predetermined attitude and was going to make full use of it.

Bad decision to hire him and insufficient training.

tequila4kapp said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Are members of the public justified in shooting cops because they have a reasonable fear of being in danger?

---

Talk to me the next time the police call for help and a member of the public goes into a life threatening situation to take care of it.

---

Talk to me next time members of the public are given all of the support, training, tools and equipment to answer that call.

A miscarriage of justice, plainly. The person who shot that man should be in prison today.

This is so shocking it has left me speechless.

So the cop created the tension which then caused him to fear for his life which caused him to kill a man. Cool.

The victim was clearly terrified making the cops Simon Says game even harder. The guy was complying and on the ground. All the cops had to do was cuff him. Instead, he escalated the situation. The victim, sobbing uncontrollably in terror, was crawling slowly with his head down. While crawling his pants slipped down. As he reached to pull up his pants, he was murdered by rage-filled maniac.

If we as a society allow a person like this to walk the streets as if nothing happened, then we deserve it when it happens again and again.

Just a hunch, psycho bullied kid on roids living out 1st person shooter video game fantasy

ibhoagiesforlife said:

---

The victim was clearly terrified making the cops Simon Says game even harder. The guy was complying and on the ground. All the cops had to do was cuff him. Instead, he escalated the situation. The victim, sobbing uncontrollably in terror, was crawling slowly with his head down. While crawling his pants slipped down. As he reached to pull up his pants, he was murdered by rage-filled maniac.

If we as a society allow a person like this to walk the streets as if nothing happened, then we deserve it when it happens again and again.

---

The people that should be the most upset about this are good cops that know this is wrong. They get to deal with the hatred and distrust of the public. If a cop in that situation fears for his then don't be a cop you aren't built for this ***** I hope his life is a living hell filled with death threats and fear till the day he dies.

tequila4kapp said:

---

When a policeman is responding to reports of a gunman, is holding a gun on you and repeatedly and explicitly tells you he'll shoot you if you don't follow his instructions the very LAST thing you do is move your hand behind your back like you are reaching into your waistband for a gun.

---

I agree, that was a very poor choice by the guy who got his head blown off. Unfortunately, when a maniac has a gun pointed at your head and is screaming at you that he's going to kill you if you lose his sadistic game of Simon Says, it's very difficult to think rationally. The cop is at fault. He should go to prison and when he gets out should never be allowed near a badge again.

tequila4kapp said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Are members of the public justified in shooting cops because they have a reasonable fear of being in danger?

---

Talk to me the next time the police call for help and a member of the public goes into a life threatening situation to take care of it.

---

The only people whose lives were in danger in this situation were those who had to interact with the police.

Yogi Bear said:

---

The officer was never under any rational danger.

---

Of course he was. Entering a building where there are reports of guns being brandished is inherently life threateningly dangerous. Add to that a suspect reaching into their waistband and the officer is facing potential imminent danger.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

The officer was never under any rational danger.

---

Of course he was. Entering a building where there are reports of guns being brandished is inherently life threateningly dangerous. Add to that a suspect reaching into their waistband and the officer is facing potential imminent danger.

---

The officer had a desperately compliant man on the ground. He had an assault rifle trained on the suspect and backup with him. It is not reasonable to believe that man was going to try and pull a gun.

I have my BS filter up when I read stories about police brutality. If we're honest with ourselves, we'll admit there's a lot of self vicitimization out there, and it's very profitable if it doesn't end up being fatal (and usually, it doesn't).

In this case, however, the cop was setting the suspect up to fail. When the suspect went down on his hands and knees, the reasonable thing would have been to converge on him right away. While I somewhat understand the poster's opinion about the cop feeling threatened, I don't think the images convey that threat. I might be more understanding if the verbal commands that preceded the shooting weren't so aggressive and confusing, but taking everything into account it seems the cop made up his mind about what he was going to do long before pulling the trigger.

Sad, and an unfortunate data point for people who want to paint cops with a broad brush.

Northside91- I think you have it right. The way to handle this type of situation is to calm everyone (suspects, fellow cops) down. This officer exacerbated the situation by extremely aggressive actions and demeanor. You have to take charge of the situation, but not be a total Adam Henry.The cop either was poorly trained or should never have been hired.
The stupid remarks by some about this being justification for shooting cops says more about their attitude to authority than anything else. Good cops hate these situations and know that some will paint all cops with the same brush.

CAL6371 said:

---

Northside91- I think you have it right. The way to handle this type of situation is to calm everyone (suspects, fellow cops) down. This officer exacerbated the situation by extremely aggressive actions and demeanor. You have to take charge of the situation, but not be a total Adam Henry.The cop either was poorly trained or should never have been hired.
The stupid remarks by some about this being justification for shooting cops says more about their attitude to authority than anything else. Good cops hate these situations and know that some will paint all cops with the same brush.

---

If you say so. If they truly do, they should speak up. I won't hold my breath though.

Oh - you mean they should go to the Press to complain about their fellow worker or their boss like you go to the Press when you think someone you work with has fouled up? Tell me about the times you have done that.

CAL6371 said:

---

Northside91- I think you have it right. The way to handle this type of situation is to calm everyone (suspects, fellow cops) down. This officer exacerbated the situation by extremely aggressive actions and demeanor. You have to take charge of the situation, but not be a total Adam Henry.The cop either was poorly trained or should never have been hired.
The stupid remarks by some about this being justification for shooting cops says more about their attitude to authority than anything else. Good cops hate these situations and know that some will paint all cops with the same brush.

---

Just to be clear, there were two cops present and the one shouting instructions was NOT the officer who shot. I
think its worth noting that the state of mind of the officer who was screaming instructions and escalating (and sounded out of control) isn't implied to the one who shot. In other words, the cop who shot probably claimed that he was in complete control and reacting to the actions of the victim. The fact that his partner was screaming like a crazy man is largely irrelevant.

I have to disagree with those who think that, from an officer's point of view, there wasn't a basis for fearing for their safety when the guy reached for his waistband. They had a report of people in a hotel room pointing a gun out of a window (which in hindsight was totally innocuous). Given what they knew (or thought they knew), when the guy reached for his waistband, it very easily could have been a gun. And if it was, he would have been able to fire pretty quickly. Add to that the fact that he had been told not to move his hands (which infers bad intent), and they panicked.

To be clear, I completely disagree with how the cops handled the situation. They clearly escalated the situation in a way that seemed unwarranted and unnecessarily created a situation where this could happen. The instructions and tactics seemed awful (and I suspect violated protocol). But when he reached for his waistband, I think many cops would have fired in a reasonable belief for their safety.

The question I have is what CRIMINAL (not civil or moral) culpability do police have when they wrongly and unnecessarily create a scenario that leads to a justified shooting? I don't know the answer to that. Maybe manslaughter?

Here's my source.

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/?utm_term=.ed16498b684e

BearGoggles - thanks for the clarification - I thought the shouter was the shooter.
I know of no criminal law the non-shooter violated. Being present and escalating a bad situation even against protocol or training is no crime as far as I know.