Daniel Shaver's shooting by police officer was an avoidable execution

In a quarter-century of participating in and leading tactical resolution operations, I have never heard a law enforcement professional use such offensive -- almost taunting -- rhetoric. The police officer appeared hell-bent on baiting a confused but receptive and compliant subject into making a deadly mistake.

Was this related to the officer's inexperience or lack of emotional maturity and control? What police executive with oversight of tactical operations could have felt this officer possessed the skills necessary to de-escalate potentially combustible situations?

In high-stress in extremis situations with a noncompliant subject who purposely disregards commands, it is understandable that law enforcement officers may issue loud, get-your-attention directions -- sometimes laced with profanity that can be commensurate with the gravity of a potentially dangerous encounter. But these cases typically involve a physical confrontation or potentially deadly standoff.

Absent the dispatch call of "weapon(s) in a hotel room," there is no evidence on the video that justifies the officer's need to vocally ratchet up the temperature. Listening to him issue commands was revolting -- he comes off as a drunk-with-power bully who enjoys toying with his prey.

Examples of inappropriate and unconscionable language:

(0:26) "Apparently we have a failure for you to comprehend simple instructions."

(0:49) "Shut up! I'm not here to be tactful or diplomatic with you. You listen. You obey."

(2:08) (to a woman who had exited the room ahead of Shaver) "Young lady, shut up and listen."

(4:10) (screaming) "You think you're going to fall, you better fall on your face."

Brailsford also referred to Shaver, 26, as "young man." Brailsford is 27. A simple "sir" or "ma'am" is standard professional vernacular in dealing with potential arrestees. It can be issued sternly, but respectfully. In my estimation, his use of the word "young" when addressing Shaver and his hotel guest was as a condescending pejorative.

When issuing commands, an officer needs to immediately assess external factors. Can the subject hear me? Is there a language barrier? Are my commands concise and clear enough? Brailsford's confusing and contradictory commands exacerbated the situation. In incidents like this, officers must have rehearsed in training -- countless times -- the commands to be used in high-risk arrests. Brevity and succinctness are critical.

Brailsford inquired if Shaver had been drinking. If someone is inebriated, their default response may be a denial. Communication -- reading the signs -- involves intuitive analysis that takes in a person's body language, tone of voice, and selected verbiage. Police posted at DUI checkpoints are trained for the telltale physical signs of alcohol consumption.

This officer also should have noted how visibly shaken and fearful the subject was. It is true that duplicitous subjects may attempt to employ a ruse to get the officer to relax or drop his guard. But in this instance, you had a tactical team, strength in numbers, and a position of command resulting from the element of surprise.

My belief is that as confused (and inebriated) as Shaver was, the steady volley of confusing shouted commands frustrated him and he assumed a pose he felt was consistent with an arrest, i.e., placing his hands behind his back. His confused state and reflexive reaction to place hands behind his back could then be "interpreted" as "going for a weapon."

Two more gestures to his backside appear to be his attempts to pull his pants up while complying with a flurry of confusing commands. While we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, my assessment is that this officer was not equipped with the necessary behavioral assessment experience.

What appears obvious from the video is the officer's inability to discern that subject was struggling to find his balance while complying with the confusing commands. To those speculating as to why he would have been asked to cross his ankles, this is standard arrest protocol in a high-risk scenario. If a subject is lying prone or kneeling with their ankles crossed, the un-crossing of ankles requires an additional movement prior to any effort to escape or physically confront arresting officers. This provides officers more reaction time.

But asking a subject to crawl forward with crossed ankles is not a standard safe arrest practice or protocol. And typically, the most forward operator would not be delivering commands. His job should have been to focus on the door down the hallway from which the subjects had just exited. Shaver could have been asked to lie prone and await cuffing from advancing officers, while a "hallway monitor" remained trained on the door ahead.

Alternatively, Shaver could have been put on his knees, with fingers interlaced and hands placed atop his head. Brailsford could have had him rotate in a circle and then remain facing away from responding officers, so police could view his beltline and any potential secreted weapons. Shaver could have then been instructed to lift his shirt while facing away. This gives police valuable time to assess the threat and respond with deadly force appropriately if Shaver were to pull a weapon, spin around and locate a target.

At trial, Deputy County Attorney Susie Charbel told the jury that Shaver was intoxicated and still referred to the police officer's actions as that of a "killer." While the toxicology report would definitively chronicle what Shaver's blood alcohol content level was, the apparent alcohol impairment combined with the rational fear any reasonable person would be consumed with in a similar situation resulted in a shooting that shouldn't have occurred.

Allow for potential cooperation from the two subjects in your custody to provide you better context and intelligence. Ask questions about weaponry in the room and, if subject admits as much, query the purpose for having them. Maybe Shaver could have explained his professional need for pellet guns and advised where they were located. At a minimum, it would have applied context. You never trust without verification, but Shaver's explanation could have been combined with information investigators might have gathered from employees at the front desk while SWAT was handling the threat upstairs.

Many of the police shootings that have drawn attention to the inappropriate and all too often deadly actions of officers illustrate the role of race and implicit bias in their devastating outcomes. The case of Philip Brailsford illustrates something different -- a young, inexperienced police officer filled with hubris who made a series of preventable errors that resulted in the infuriatingly "legal" execution of a man.

In the numerous officer-involved shootings I've reviewed, I can often provide a sensible explanation for an officer's actions or find benefit of the doubt to apply.

There are neither here.