Did you miss the "YOU'RE F-CKED" Brailsford paid to have engraved on his AR-15?
Posted on 12/13/2017 4:42:22 AM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
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 know that what happened is terrible, and the family is understandably extremely distraught, and the policeman will probably be a wreck for the rest of his life, however.
I was raised in Texas in the 60’s and 70’s. I remember driving courses and weapons ranges. I remember the policeman visiting the school. And I remember my dad and mom both giving me the talk.
If a cop approaches the vehicle, both hands on steering wheel, do not move till he tells you to move.
If you drink and play with guns, you will probably have a short and painful life. BB guns are guns, not toys, treat them with respect.
Stupid games deserve stupid prizes.
Policemen have guns, do not argue with them. Better to argue with the judge and a lawyer.
No, Daniel Shaver did not deserve to die, but the girl walking down a dark alley at two in the morning as the bars were emptying did not deserve to be raped either.
But stupid games earn stupid prizes.
There are many,many,many,*many* bad and dangerous people in this country...most of them males.Cops,not being mind readers,can never be sure if a particular individual is gonna attack them.
As a result it's always good a idea when interacting with a cop to not resist,not to mouth off,not to make gestures or say things that could be interpreted as threatening.This is doubly true for guys.
In the three police encounters I've had in my 70 years (yes,I've led a *dull* life) I've followed those very rules and,as a result,the worst thing that ever came from these three encounters was one ticket for $100 (which I fought in court and won).
The solution is to remove LEO immunity to civil suit.and require, as a condition of employment, that LEOs must purchase malpractice insurance...JUST LIKE DOCTORS, NURSES, AND LAWYERS. If they cost the insurer more than the actuaries deem reasonable, they will be unemployable in law enforcement.
It was foolish for the cops to handle the situation the way they did in the moments leading up to the gunfire.
And it was foolish for the dead guy to reach down as he did in violation of several clear and detailed warnings.
If the guy hadn't been drunk this may well have never happened.
If the guy hadn't been waving a toy gun around this very probably would never have happened.
If the cops had handled the situation differently it probably wouldn't have happened.
And if the dead guy hadn't disobeyed several clear warnings it very probably would never have happened.
the video strongly suggests it was murder. The evidence not allowed concerning police record suggest the police jury of peers was in error. I would normally defer to the police -but what has been presented in this case —I cannot accept the results. I hope the civil suit results in conviction/justice.
I agree although I usually do not worry too much about what the cops are going to do.
I can only control what I do in those situations. And I cannot come back from the grave to complain about what they do.
The cops showed up at the place because they were called there. As expected. The cops see there is a weapon, so they draw, as expected. The guy comes out doing stupid things, so they order him down, as expected. He starts reaching to his waist and he gets shot, as expected.
I expect everything to go wrong in these situations, so I train myself and my children to act accordingly. If the guy had just lain flat on the floor, arms way out over his head and continued blubbering, he would have never been shot. The shots came when he reached to his waist against orders.
Yes, some of the orders were contradictory, so just lay flat on the ground, arms outstretched, until they tell you something specific. Usually, in training, I just wait until the flex bands are on the wrist. Then I can look around and say something. Anything else can get you shot.
He wasn’t a scared cop, he was a showboat cop with an audience behind him and he screamed commands to the victim like he was training a dog.
‘If the guy had just lain flat on the floor, arms way out over his head and continued blubbering, he would have never been shot’
well, it was the cop that told him not to do that...’crawl towards me’, remember...?
Yes, and if I was in confusion, laying out like that and not moving, they would not have shot.
They would have screamed and yelled, and finally jumped on me and handcuffed me, but they would not have shot.
‘They would have screamed and yelled, and finally jumped on me and handcuffed me, but they would not have shot.’
and you know this how...?
In my professional opinion, that cop was terrified. Tunnel vision, screaming because he couldn’t hear as well due to the adrenaline, unclear commands. He was scared sh-tless. In NYC, we handle calls like that with two cops who have a 9mm each. It’s quick and efficient. You don’t make a suspect cross his legs behind him and then crawl to you! You make sure your partner has you covered, you holster your weapon, and you cuff them. If there’s any movement while that’s happening, they get a knee dropped in the groin and that usually does it.
Because they didn’t pull the trigger till he moved.
Now maybe they might have shot anyway, but that is a “maybe”. The fact is that they didn’t pull the trigger till he moved.
I have been the training dummy for several MP. Not moving might get you treated pretty bad, but it never gets you shot or tazed.
‘Now maybe they might have shot anyway, but that is a “maybe”.’
up post, the advice given out for how to survive this is to do exactly as the cops tell you to do, and don’t make the slightest deviation, lest they snap and fire on you...now, you are telling us to disregard what the cops are telling you to do, make all sort of deviation from their commands, lest they snap and fire on you...talk about contradictory...
Yep, just like the autistic kid who sat perfectly still in the middle of the street while his psychiatric nurse tried to talk some sense in to the police. In that case the nurse was shot while he was laying on the ground obeying orders.
Unfortunately your approach doesn't always work either.
Is it too much to expect police to use the same kind of common sense and restraint every other firearm carrying individual is expected to have?
And if two cops are giving conflicting orders, then you do nothing!
Are you just looking for an argument?
Then go do what you want to do around the cops, we will give you a nice eulogy afterwards.
But I will do my best to survive and not give you another chance to blame the cops for my premature death.
The victim of this unconvicted murderer's bloodlust is dead. How do you suppose HE will feel for the rest of his life? Oh, wait. That's right: HE'S DEAD!!!
Did you miss the "YOU'RE F-CKED" Brailsford paid to have engraved on his AR-15?
And the autistic kid survived. Which is the point I was trying to make.
If I go through the situations I have been going through “expecting” everyone to do the right thing, or the sensible thing, or the common sense thing, I would probably be DEAD.
People, and police, in these situations sometimes do not do the “right” thing, or the “sensible” thing, or the “common” sense thing. So I, and other survivors, do the thing that keeps us alive.
And as for the nurse, if I remember correctly, her trying to talk some sense into the police was at full volume and only made the situation worse, especially for her.
What planet do you live on, Planet Gestapo Boot Licker?
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.