New body-cam video shows a police officer killing an unarmed man

A newly-released video shows an Arizona police officer shooting and killing an unarmed man in January 2016 after the man, who was crying and begging for his life, made a mistake in complying with his orders.

The body camera footage was released on Friday by the judge presiding over Officer Philip Brailsford's trial after Brailsford was acquitted on Thursday for the killing.

The victim, 26-year-old pest control worker Daniel Shaver, was staying in the La Quinta Inn & Suites in Mesa, Arizona while on a business trip when police received a call that someone was pointing a gun out of the window of the hotel, Newsweek reported. While Shaver had reportedly been showing off a pellet gun to two guests that night, according to witnesses, he was unarmed when the police confronted him in the hallway of the hotel.

In the video, Brailsford is seen standing by as another officer, Sgt. Charles Langley, commanded Shaver to get on the floor and crawl towards him, all while berating him and intimidating him with death threats. Shaver appeared to be complying with his orders, and can be heard sobbing as he crawls towards Brailsford and Langley. But after Shaver reached back toward his pant leg, Brailsford shot him five times with his AR-15, believing he was reaching for a gun.

After being charged with second-degree murder in May 2016, Brailsford was acquitted after less than six hours of deliberation by a jury, Vice News reported.

"If this situation happened exactly as it did that time, I would have done the same thing," Brailsford stated in court.

“Someone crawling on the ground isn’t much of any threat”

They are if they have a gun.

“They could have at least waited to see what he was ‘pulling out’.”

How in the world did your ancestors survive to procreate? If you wait to see what he’s pulling out, he shoots you. Dumbass.

“He was getting yelled at constantly, and being made to do dumb stuff that I highly doubt is in the popo’s training manual. You would probably be pretty confused too.”

No, but then I’m not a pussy or an idiot. I wouldn’t have reached behind me as though I were reaching for a gun.

They are if they have a gun.

Not necessarily. But oh wait, he DIDN'T have one.

How in the world did your ancestors survive to procreate? If you wait to see what he’s pulling out, he shoots you. Dumbass.

No idea. Most of them are dead now, so I can't really ask. But you're an idiot. When you have the drop on someone it's real easy to shoot them when you see them pull out a weapon. He didn't even have anything that looked like a weapon, his hand was EMPTY. Pulling out a weapon, aiming, and firing, from a crawling position is pretty damn difficult to hit anything farther than five feet. Especially if you have to do it fast enough to shoot the guy that's already completed two of the three steps. I'm guessing you don't shoot much, if at all. Many people can barely hit a person sized target at ten or 15 feet when they're standing, breathing, aiming, and slowly shooting.

No, but then I’m not a pussy or an idiot. I wouldn’t have reached behind me as though I were reaching for a gun.

I'll take your word you're not a pussy, but we've already established you're an idiot. If you were intoxicated, confused, being yelled at, and your pants started falling down, you'd instinctively try to pull them up. I highly doubt in that state you'd have the presence of mind to not grab your pants.

I think we have one troll here posting under several different names.

The posts are not only similar, not only repeat the same bogus crap, but they are similarly dimwitted. (See “Dunning-Kruger effect.”)

“When you have the drop on someone it’s real easy to shoot them when you see them pull out a weapon.”

Yup. Classic Dunning-Kruger. How many people have *you* shot after they drew a gun on you?

“I’m guessing you don’t shoot much, if at all.”

Your low intelligence leads you to guess wrongly again.

“Many people can barely hit a person sized target at ten or 15 feet when they’re standing, breathing, aiming, and slowly shooting.”

So you want to require policemen to stake their lives on your idea of what “most people” can do. Oh, well, “most people” can’t hit anybody, so I’ll just give him two or three free shots before I react. Dumbass.

“If you were intoxicated, confused, being yelled at, and your pants started falling down, you’d instinctively try to pull them up.”

Never in a million years.

“I highly doubt in that state you’d have the presence of mind to not grab your pants.”

First rule of Dunning-Kruger Club: you don’t know you’re in Dunning-Kruger Club.

I think we have one troll here posting under several different names.

No, I'm pretty sure you've used the same name the whole time. Of course, in someone else's thread of argument you might have done so, but not for me.

Yup. Classic Dunning-Kruger. How many people have *you* shot after they drew a gun on you?

How is that classic Dunning-Kruger? Do you even know what their work described? This is a physics question, not psychology. A person pointing a gun has to click. A person drawing has to draw, move the firearm and point it in the proper direction, aim, then click. Possibly rack it since a lot of people don't keep theirs loaded. And me having shot anyone or not is irrelevant to the argument. Ask yourself this, even ignoring cops and drunkeness: would you rather be the guy with the gun drawn, or the guy who has to pull his out, aim, and shoot? Which guy do you think would have a better chance of winning that gunfight?

Your low intelligence leads you to guess wrongly again.

Funny. You keep displaying the same things you accuse me of doing.

So you want to require policemen to stake their lives on your idea of what “most people” can do. Oh, well, “most people” can’t hit anybody, so I’ll just give him two or three free shots before I react. Dumbass.

No, but they shouldn't be engaging any targets until there's an actual threat. A drunk, submissive guy crawling on the floor is close to the lowest threat level possible. And no, dumbass, the cop should react when he sees a weapon. Not after the guy pulls his pants up then puts his EMPTY hand back on the floor. And, the cop in the video had an even better angle to see what the guy was doing, compared to a camera in the middle of his chest. Plus, the other cops with him said they saw no threat, and none of them engaged. So obviously he wasn't such a terrible danger as you say he was.

First rule of Dunning-Kruger Club: you don’t know you’re in Dunning-Kruger Club.

Again, what does that have to do with drunk, scared people pulling up their pants when they start falling? But at least we know you're not in the club, half your replies don't even relate to what I said, they just keep spamming the same thing.

“No, I’m pretty sure you’ve used the same name the whole time.”

Yeah, but you haven’t.

“Again, what does that have to do with drunk, scared people pulling up their pants when they start falling?”

It has everything to do with you thinking you’re smart enough to figure this out, when you’re not even close.

Done with you in all your guises.

Yeah, but you haven’t.

Huh. going back through our conversation I only see two names: mine and yours. What posts are you talking about?

It has everything to do with you thinking you’re smart enough to figure this out, when you’re not even close.

How much is there to figure out? You have video evidence of a bad shoot. You have other cops present who said they didn't feel threatened - bad shoot. You have the cops making the guy do things that are very doubtfully in any police training manual. Everything about this story points to a bad shoot and an improper acquittal. It doesn't take any overthinking or imagination stretching to see that.

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.