Posted on 12/10/2017 10:03:51 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
A Maricopa County jury on Thursday found former Mesa police Officer Philip “Mitch” Brailsford not guilty of second-degree murder charges in the 2016 shooting of an unarmed Texas man who was on his knees begging for his life.
Jurors deliberated for less than six hours over two days, finishing Thursday afternoon. The eight-member jury also found Brailsford not guilty of the lesser charge of reckless manslaughter.
The packed courtroom in Maricopa County Superior Court was quiet after one of Judge George Foster’s clerks read the verdict.
Brailsford was one of two officers in Arizona since 2005 who had been charged with murder in connection with an on-duty shooting.
The case ends during a time when on-duty police shootings have received heightened scrutiny. Some shootings, particularly those recorded on video, have prompted protests throughout the U.S.
Mesa police have released footage from Officer Philip “Mitch” Brailsford’s body camera of the fatal shooting of an unarmed Texas man at a hotel in 2016. This edited video shows the moments leading up Daniel Shaver’s death. Mesa Police Department
Brailsford’s acquittal came after impassioned closing arguments that offered contrasting narratives of why Brailsford shot and killed 26-year-old Daniel Shaver in a hotel hallway two years ago.
Shaver was kneeling, crying and begging not to be shot after he was confronted by six Mesa police officers in a La Quinta Inn & Suites hallway Jan. 18, 2016. Brailsford, who was fired two months after the shooting, testified that he fired his AR-15 rifle five times because it appeared Shaver was reaching for a gun.
“If this situation happened exactly as it did that time, I would have done the same thing,” Brailsford said in his testimony.
Laney Sweet, Shaver’s widow, said she had no comment to make about the verdict as, crying, she exited an elevator with family.
Mark Geragos, Sweet’s lawyer, called the shooting an “execution.”
“The justice system miserably failed Daniel (Shaver) and his family,” Geragos said.
Brailsford’s lawyer, Michael Piccarreta, said he had expected the jury would come back with a positive outcome for his client.
“We had confidence that the jury would recognize this as a tragedy, not a murder, and that Mitch Brailsford acted in a split-second as he was trained,” he said.
After the verdict, Brailsford and his family were escorted by a Maricopa County sheriff’s deputy out of the courtroom through a back door.
Footage of shooting, captured on two police on-body cameras, formed the foundation of the prosecution’s case. 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.
Throughout the trial, which began in late October, Deputy County Attorney Susie Charbel portrayed Brailsford as a “killer” who claimed he feared for his life to cover up an unjustified shooting.
In her closing arguments, Charbel told the jury that an intoxicated Shaver looked “pathetic” before he was killed and didn’t get a chance to know who shot him.
“(Brailsford) doesn’t get a pass because he was wearing a police uniform that night,” Charbel said.
Piccarreta said Brailsford followed the tactics of a well-trained officer. If jurors believe the training is wrong, he said, that’s not something Brailsford should be accountable for.
Piccarreta said Brailsford shot Shaver because he was protecting himself, five other officers and a woman police had taken into custody.
“The last thing in the world that Mitch Brailsford wanted to do that night was shoot. His goal wasn’t to kill Daniel Shaver,” Piccarreta told the jury. “Shaver is not a bad person, but his actions are what brought the police that night.”
YouTube Video: Execution of Daniel Shaver
He made him crawl, so he could have a reason to shoot him...which he did. He’s a f#%^ing murderer....with the law backing up his actions. He will be fired because of public pressure, but will be walking while the victim will be rotting.
Saw the video. The title was right, it was an execution. No excuses, anyone in the military that did this would be brought up on charges.
Zero to do with facts of the case
Very astute comparable Drew
That cop murdered that guy.
Edinburgh blue wall buddy covered his ass
The cop did not know he was unarmed and the perp made movements that he may have been armed. I guess you would like the cop dead so you can feel better.
Someone saw the man through his hotel window with his pellet gun.
” etching on the dust cover of the rifle Brailsford used to shoot Shaver, which said “You’re f–ked,”
That sounds like something a serial killer would do.
I wonder if he has a locked case full of trophies.
So what was the purpose of having him crawl fifty feet on his hands and knees instead of just having him lie face down with his hands behind his back and cuff him without further drama?
More time for the guy to make a false move he could use it as an excuse to waste him, just like in the movies?
Brailford is a failed movie star wannabe, after all.
You are a liar.
https://www.redstate.com/patterico/2017/12/09/shooting-daniel-shaver-law-enforcement-perspective/
“If he’s running, he’s VC. If he’s standing still, he’s a well disciplined VC.”
Except this was Arizona, not Vietnam, or Viet Nam as we used to call it.
Care to describe in just what manner this man was “perp?” He received a call from the front desk telling him they needed to exit the room, which they did and walked straight into having a weapon trained on them with a deranged asshole barking contradictory orders. So, go ahead, what did he perpetrate?
That is exactly what is going on. This Lewinski guy and his ilk have blood on their hands. They train the cops to be trigger happy, then testify that they were following training when they kill a guy. What's the poor jury to think?
PLEASE read this. It explains a lot: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/training-officers-to-shoot-first-and-he-will-answer-questions-later.html
I beleive in the rule of law, not the rule of anonymous people who weren’t on the jury watching online videos.
That’s pretty much what did happen. Abysmally bad police tactics, combined with as execution of a man clearly doing everything he could to cooperate.
Yup. Attitude is sorta the same though, ain’t it?
This cop was entirely legally justified in shooting the poor distraught SOB. The Police, reacting to a guy with a pellet rifle like they were going to be the first responders at the next Mandaly Bay, scared him shitless and made him crawl like a dog, and when he screwed up and reached back because maybe his pants were coming off, or his junk was twisted in his undies while crawling, or maybe he was going to draw down on a crowd of loaded, aimed rifles.
Bang you’re dead and I didn’t murder you.
It may well be law, but it isn’t justice.
Ages ago I got out of a car at gunpoint, two county guys responding to a liquor store robbery, I’m driving the same make and model as the bad guy, apparently. I was as compliant as I could be, but I was pretty freaked out, and I’m sure they could have let me have it with those shotguns when I put my hand below my waist when they told me to get on the ground.
But that’s when cops were less militarized and neither of the two were looking for any legal reason to blow me away that day.
It’s kind of like the cops shooting dogs thing. They don’t know when the dog is a psycho hair trigger meat weapon or just the family servant acting wary around a stranger.
Because of guys like Mr. “you’re f**ked” that’s the way I feel when I’m approached by an officer.
The badge turns them into Judge Dread. I am the law!~
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.