Posted on 12/15/2017 1:05:08 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.
Daniel Shaver got drunk and did something stupid. But he did not deserve or need to die for it.
On January 18, 2016, Shaver, who was 26 and lived in Granbury, Texas, was staying at a La Quinta Inn in Mesa, a Phoenix suburb, while working on a job for his father-in-law's pest control company. After inviting two other hotel guests to his room for a drink, he showed them an air rifle he used for work, at one point sticking it out a window to demonstrate the scope's range.
Alarmed by the rifle's silhouette, a couple who had been using the hotel's hot tub informed the staff. That's how Brailsford and five other Mesa officers ended up confronting Shaver in a fifth-floor hallway.
The bodycam video of the encounter, which was not publicly released until after the verdict, shows that Shaver, who according to the autopsy had a blood alcohol concentration more than three times the legal threshold for driving under the influence, was confused by the strange and contradictory orders that Sgt. Charles Langley barked at him. Instead of simply handcuffing Shaver as he lay face down with his hands behind his head, under the guns of three officers, Langley inexplicably told the terrified and intoxicated man to crawl toward him.
While crawling, eyes on the floor, Shaver paused and reached toward his waistband, apparently to pull up the athletic shorts that had slipped down as he moved. That is when Brailsford fired five rounds from his AR-15 rifle.
"He could have easily and quickly drawn a weapon down on us and fired without aiming," Brailsford said later. Yet neither of the other two officers who had guns drawn on Shaver perceived the threat that Brailsford did.
One of those officers testified that he would not fire based purely on the "draw stroke" Brailsford thought he saw. He would also consider the context, such as whether a suspect is belligerent and threatening or, like Shaver, compliant, apologetic, and tearful.
Brailsford said he was trained to ignore context. "We're not trained necessarily to pay attention to what a suspect is saying," he testified. "We're supposed to watch their actions and what they do with their hands."
The jury apparently accepted the counterintuitive argument that police, because of their special training, are apt to be less careful with guns than the average citizen would be. A similar dispensation seemed to be at work last June, when Minnesota jurors acquitted former St. Anthony police officer Jeronimo Yanez of manslaughter after he panicked during a traffic stop and shot a driver who was reaching for his license.
Even more astonishing was the failure of South Carolina jurors to reach a verdict in the trial of former North Charleston police officer Michael Slager, who shot an unarmed motorist in the back as he ran away. Last May, five months after that mistrial, Slager signed a federal plea agreement in which he admitted the shooting was not justified.
All three of these officers said they were afraid, but that is not enough to justify the use of deadly force. When juries fail to ask whether police have good reason to fear the people they kill, regular people have good reason to fear police.
“I saw the video, it was the hardest thing I’ve ever watched. It makes you think that at any time, out of the blue, the cops could show up, terrorize you at gunpoint then shoot you dead without consequence for themselves.”
Which makes the case that any encounter with law enforcement is an encounter with an unpredictable, armed, irrational, and lethally violent individual who can kill you and your family with little or no reason.
That said more and more people will choose to defend themselves and their families when they are aggressively stopped by law enforcement.
This means that innocent, well-intentioned members of law enforcement will end up paying a price because of a**holes like Brailsford.
Seriously, at this rate “I was in fear for my life” will soon become a legitimate defense for civilians shooting rogue cops.
When it became more important “for the officer to go home to his family” than to not shoot kids with BB guns or people who don’t follow directions exactly.
The police have lost the benefit of the doubt in this society; too many kids, too many unarmed people and that damned ‘Tueller Drill’ that is responsible for the deaths of a lot of people. Fire anybody who practices it or even suggests it should be used for training.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful but let me put this another way.
Lets say you have a headache and someone gives you a bottle of Tylenol with 100 capsules. It's an ordinary bottle of Tylenol but 5 out of the 100 capsules are in fact Cyanide. Do you like those odds? Still have a headache?
The creep hasn’t even been charged yet. See the last sentence of:
That cop is a murderer and needs to be imprisoned for life —
assuming that execution is not a legal possibility.
I wouldn’t take the Tylenol. To risky.
Posted this on another thread with the same story - think it bears repeating every time I read about this...
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I was in the sandbox in the eighties during the “Tanker Wars”
Our Rules of Engagement during that deployment was a defensive posture. This meant that we could only defend ourselves against actual aggression - we could only fire if someone shot at us or we had a *verified* threat. In other words, we were required to assess and guarantee the threat before opening fire.
Later, during Desert Storm and the endless garbage that followed, the ROE was a combat posture: Shoot at the enemy, or anyone who seems to threaten you. The latter because lots of enemy fighters chose to wear civilian clothes. Or were women. Or kids. You were expected to exercise judgment, but if you truly felt that you were in danger, you were cleared to shoot.
What the police and their apologists want is combat posture ROE. And if that’s their ROE, then who is the enemy?
Us. Everyone who isn’t a cop. It has to be - there isn’t anyone else...
And we could be anyone - because we don’t wear uniforms. We could be a man, a woman, a child...
Even scarier is that this is pretty much what the courts, other cops and their apologists have given them. After any shoot, the thin blue line forms a protective wall around the shooter. And if they do happen to go to trial, all they have to do is say they were afraid and even the juries are instructed to give them leeway.
Cops should be on “defensive” ROE. They should only be allowed to fire if fired upon, or there is a genuine threat assessed and verified. If they fail to do this and shoot an innocent person they should go to jail - forever.
Why? First of all because they *asked* for the job - no one forced them to become a police officer. Secondly, they’re *supposed* to be better than everyone else - at least that’s what we’re told. They’re “heroes” for doing nothing more than putting on a uniform and wearing a badge. Finally, they’re supposedly very well-trained - which is why they get to walk around in tacti-cool gear wearing shooting glasses and carrying loaded Glocks and AR-15’s.
Shooting when you’re in *fear* of losing life or limb is a defense for a civilian - not a trained police officer.
The reality is that being a cop is *dangerous* - which means that sometimes (often - depending on where you’re a cop) you will be afraid. If you can’t control your fear and remain calm enough to assess and verify an actual threat to your life prior to opening fire, you shouldn’t be a cop.
Go wash cars or something.
There hasn’t been any and he hasn’t been charged. See the last sentence of:
The taxpayers now have to foot the bill for another fearful cretin with a badge. Eliminate their immunity from civil action, just as doctors have to carry malpractice insurance, police officers should be required to carry professional liability insurance as a condition of employment. Can’t find an insurance compny willing to insure you...find another line of work.
That's because the jury didn't see the video ...
One of the five cops could not have hand cuffed the guy while he was on the floor in the prone position ?
Who the heck trains these guys?
I was a police officer at the LAPD as a young man. Scared cops can be identified and need to be removed. You can spot them easily. They are a potential danger to everyone.
“Don’t equate a trigger happy @$$hole cop with with the more than 95% of dedicated officers.”
LOL! Like all those dedicated officers who stood around while that Salt Lake City cop abused the nurse who was doing her job correctly?
“Only an idiot would say a cop is scarier than a criminal.”
I disagree.
When facing a criminal, you’re facing only their bad intent and capacity to potentially inflict harm. So be it.
When facing a cop, you’re facing, ultimately, the full power and intent of the entire United States law enforcement apparatus and legal system. Just effectively resist/refuse to comply and watch the escalation proceed ultimately to the federal/military level. Refuse even the most corrupt, unlawful, dangerous or stupid command from a cop and your life is over.
Which one scares you more? You may be more scared of the former, but these days I'm definitely more concerned with the latter.
I find it’s more accurate to blame the police SOP than the cop themselves.
They are trained and drilled that THEY are the brotherhood, and the public is their war-enemy.
That and the SOP keeps them paid well enough to know that another career will not pay their bills, but too poor to save up and change careers with a savings. And then the Pension thing too. People need to understand that cushy Pensions are a control thing, not something to be nice and thank them for the service.
This will turn any good cop into a bad one over time.
I too would take my chances with the bad guy instead. The police are just too out of hand, but when you understand their lifestyle and training to that of a dog being trained it’ll become clear.
The problem is not the person behind the badge, it’s the superiors and the SOP that is designed to turn them against us.
Remember, riot cops stand between rioters and townhall. Not rioters and businesses, residential neighborhoods or the innocent. Nothing short of a complete overhaul of the system will fix this.. But Prisons need to be populated as well so this will never happen.
“Go wash cars or something.”
HERE HERE
“Only an idiot would say a cop is scarier than a criminal.”
If you’re a legally armed citizen in New York City then you’d be an idiot to be less concerned about cops than criminals.
Also, if a criminal illegally assaults you then you have a right to defend yourself. But if a cop illegally assaults you you’re supposed to just suck it up and pray that you don’t get killed.
Sorry, but these days you’re an idiot if you don’t have more fear of cops than you do of criminals.
“Problem is that cops are scared of everything: blacks, whites, hispanics, kids, women, old people, people who don’t comply, people who comply, crime victims, mentally ill, dogs, people selling stuff without a permit, etc.”
...and little girls’ lemonade stands. Australian women in pajamas, cellphones, bananas, xboxes, paintballs, etc.
No excuses and no rationalizations. The son of a bitch got away with cold blooded murder. FTC
“Only an idiot would say a cop is scarier than a criminal.”
I think this poor bastard and the Aussie woman in Minnesota would beg to differ with you...for openers.
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.