Posted on 12/16/2017 7:47:45 PM PST by JP1201
The jurors who acquitted Philip Brailsford of second-degree murder last week were told to judge him based on “how a reasonable officer would act, versus a regular person with no police training,” as The Arizona Republic put it.
That distinction was crucial, because a “regular person” would never get away with shooting an unarmed man who was crawling on the floor, sobbing and begging for his life.
Like other recent cases in which jurors failed to hold police officers accountable for the unnecessary use of deadly force, Brailsford’s acquittal shows that cops benefit from a double standard. Unlike ordinary citizens, they can kill with impunity as long as they say they were afraid, whether or not their fear was justified.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Cops now benefit from asymmetric rules, so how much longer until we reach a point where people will start to fight back, under the defense of being in fear for their lives...
This is a dangerous game the police and the judicial system is playing...
That is what the blacks are doing. As much as we detest their refusal to accept simple laws, we agree with them that the cops are out of control.
“This is a dangerous game the police and the judicial system is playing...”
Yep.
Looking at a slow mo of the kid “reaching”, you can see his hand come into view - EMPTY - before the cop starts firing.
There is no justification for shooting a person because you *think* they might have a gun.
This MUST have had to do with what the jury was allowed to hear and see and what they weren’t. Otherwise it seems unreasonable, unless it was jury nullification, which I doubt, since in seems like the perp was a whitey, chalkie, pinky, haole or whatever else they call us.
If they have broken into your house and are acting like they have a weapon, damn right you can fire on them.
I don’t know. I thought that at first after the verdict. Then I looked at the case a little more closely. I’m taking all of this from a little research I did and the videotape of the man’s shooting, but here’s what I found:
- The man took an air rifle out on a balcony and was pointing it, alarming people who called the police, not knowing what it actually was. That act brought the police in full force.
- Possibly hotel staff saw him with the gun too.
- He didn’t comply with all the police asked him to do, did things he shouldn’t have, and he seemed to talk back to them at one point.
- From what I saw, he was found to have a very high blood alcohol level, but he was obviously impaired, and when asked if they were drunk by the officer, he and the woman both said no. If he’d admitted to drinking, I wonder if things might have gone very differently.
- He did stop and reach back, which was the motion that prompted the shooting.
It seemed to me, then, like the officer was probably thinking that the man seemed to be someone who was going to try to shoot at them, for whatever reason.
women and cops can get away with this.
men canot.
Americans who carry weapons are NOT the enemy.
that’s your first mistake in thinking
‘women and cops can get away with this.’
in the very near future, women are going to get away with a great deal that men would not...
If I were a juror, I would politely lecture the judge that I am not trained to be an officer and cannot judge what a reasonable officer should think. I would point out that I was selected as a member of the community, and that the officer is also a member of the community, and as such he should know how a reasonable member of the community would act, and therefore he will be judged as such.
I would politely remind the judge that he, the officer, and we jurors all shop at the same grocery stores, our children go to the same schools, we dine at the same restaurants, and trying to create a special class of behavior for some will only lead to trouble.
Therefore, I am only qualified to judge the officer based on what a reasonable member of the community would think.
-PJ
Seems to be foolproof way to gun citizens down and walk away.
Wonder if that muzzie cop that wasted the Australian woman was pissing his trousers in fear and just had to shoot her to assuage his terror?
[[- He did stop and reach back, which was the motion that prompted the shooting.]]
Correction- He did stop and reach back a SECOND TIME- after being told in no uncertain terms that doing so again would be a bad bad idea— The police allowed him a few mistakes- allowed him to disobey a couple of times- yet it was this one action- the reaching behind himself, that as the threat or possible threat to police- especially after being told not to do that potentially dangerous act again-
The man had been accused of having a gun already- and it is NOT unreasonable to think that someone who pointed a long gun out a window would also have a short gun, a pistol, tucked away in the waistband-
This whole conversation came up in another thread- and i posted several videos of cops getting shot in the blink of an eye when they hesitated too long or allowed too many ‘mistakes’ by a perp/suspect-
Yes we can all look back now with the massive benefit of hindsight and see a ‘slow motion video’ of his hand- however, the act of reaching back like he did did not happen in slow motion- He had been warned explicitly not to do that again, but the fella disobeyed- and did so very quickly- reaching for his waistband-
defense wanted the words shown to the jury but it was decided it was too prejudicial so they never saw it...
the cop shouted several different commands right in a row and for some cockamamie reason instead of handcuffing the guy right away , he had him do a "simon says" trial...the poor slob failed when he reached to pull up his pants...
the cop was there ready to shoot and kill and he did...
no cop should go into a situation thinking he's going to kill someone...he should go into a situation and see how to defuse it, and to save people from harm....
Would that end in a mistrial being declared?
More effective to give that speech in the privacy of the jury room. And more effective.
I have to ask...is this the America you want to live in?...sounds like communist Russia to me....
This MUST have had to do with what the jury was allowed to hear and see and what they weren’t. Otherwise it seems unreasonable, unless it was jury nullification, which I doubt, since in seems like the perp was a whitey, chalkie, pinky, haole or whatever else they call us.
Right you are...
As per Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Daniel_Shaver
On May 25, 2016, Myers ordered portions of the video released. The released video omits the shooting itself. The redacted version includes footage from Brailsford’s body camera up to the time when someone exits Shaver’s hotel room and footage from another officer’s camera while he escorts a woman from the hotel. The footage shows that Shaver was on the floor as ordered and crying when he was shot five times in the back with an AR-15 rifle by Brailsford.[13][14][15][16]
The full unedited body camera footage of the shooting was unsealed by the Court immediately after the end of the trial.[citation needed]
That seems to be the M.O. for cops doing their beloved "dynamic entry", more commonly on the wrong house these days.
It would seem from the home invasions where thugs pretend to be cops that lighting up anyone that breaks in with weapons should be the prudent thing to do Treated as a grave threat unless they can prove otherwise, fast.
Wait to see if they are really cops or not could cost you and your family their lives.
[[.where the hell was he going to pull this magical gun out from?....]]
Are you serious?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.