Mesa, Arizona Police Shooting

bobbyrlf3

I haven't seen this on the board, so I apologize if we've already discussed this. It's a 2016 case out of Mesa, Arizona where the police responded to a call about a man pointing a rifle out of a hotel room. Responding officers were in the hallway approaching the room when the suspect exited his room and immediately surrendered. The rest is detailed in the story and there's video of the contact between the officers and the suspect.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa-breaking/2017/12/07/philip-brailsford-verdict-daniel-shaver-killing/927052001/

The officer who killed him was acquitted on Thursday. I think the officer was absolutely wrong in this. He has since been fired for "unsatisfactory performance".

It's also telling that this case hasn't received widespread media attention; I think that is at least partially because the kid was white. I don't like to feed the racism beast, but I think there's a reasonable case to be made on that score.

early

I watched the video snipit on the news.

I don't know. It's a senseless tragedy. When I was a kid cops carried revolvers that were rarely drawn. The police in my memory would have snatched that guy bald headed and had him cuffed and booted out to the car like a raggedy anne doll. It's too bad those days are gone.

tennmike

Stupid video won't open for me. :uhm: From the write-up sounds like the cop shot him a little early in the event.

sgtrock21

cpj wrote: »

Without seeing the entire video, no one can really say. The crappy video in that link DOES show him reaching quickly towards his back. But again, short video snippets without the entire context make it hard to hide.
As far as getting his job back, he was fired for an unrelated issue.

In this situation. He should have had hands in the air with fingers spread or facedown on the ground with hands behind his head. Total idiot or suicide by cop.

CaliFFL

I watched the unedited version of the video.

Why didn't the cops simply walk 10 feet down the hallway while they were on the ground in submissive positions and cuff them without all the shouting and confusing instructions? The cop screamed at him "if you make a mistake, I'll shoot you." and "cross your feet and crawl to me". Yeah, no opportunity for a mistake there.

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---ed," because he felt it was prejudicial.

One public servant obviously not trained to "protect and serve" but also a second public servant suppressing evidence supporting Brailsford's mentality.

Fisheadgib

CaliFFL wrote: »

I watched the unedited version of the video.

Why didn't the cops simply walk 10 feet down the hallway while they were on the ground in submissive positions and cuff them without all the shouting and confusing instructions? The cop screamed at him "if you make a mistake, I'll shoot you." and "cross your feet and crawl to me". Yeah, no opportunity for a mistake there.

I also saw the unedited version and agree here. The guy initially got on his knees with hands up, then went face down with hands outstretched, then the cop told him to get on his knees and crawl towards him and the whole time, them cop was shouting that if he did anything wrong, he would be shot. It was like a game of "Simon says" where you die if you mess up. The guy was sobbing and whimpering the whole time and the cops shouted instructions were confusing the heck out of him. That cop was way too edgy to carry a gun.

breamfisher

Supposedly the officer had the deceased and the other individual come towards him and his fellow officers so that the officers could then enter the room, clear it, and find the firearm.

That being said, dude was supposedly drunk (I think the tox screen showed him to be inebriated) so asking for strict obedience in that situation might be a little difficult. I didn't see him as being non-compliant, but rather a drunk who was stressed out, fearful, and overwhelmed. And whose britches were falling down. But, I'm not an LEO so I could be wrong.

Regarding the officers's dustcover, I actually found it odd that he was allowed to have that on his rifle. Not because it showed anything, but most government employees aren't allowed to speak or show any sort of vulgarity/offensiveness on their jobs. Heck, most folks I know who work for the gov. aren't even allowed to wear vendor's gear and other "non-standard" stuff. Here in FL most state and local governments wouldn't even allow their guys to wear mirrored sunglasses for fear of giving the wrong image....

Make_My_Day

It used to be that a LEO had to actually see a weapon before firing. Now all it takes is suspicious movement. I can't support what it looks like happened in that video.

CaliFFL

breamfisher wrote: »

Regarding the officers's dustcover, I actually found it odd that he was allowed to have that on his rifle. Not because it showed anything, but most government employees aren't allowed to speak or show any sort of vulgarity/offensiveness on their jobs. Heck, most folks I know who work for the gov. aren't even allowed to wear vendor's gear and other "non-standard" stuff. Here in FL most state and local governments wouldn't even allow their guys to wear mirrored sunglasses for fear of giving the wrong image....

I disagree. If I had an egraving on a rifle that said the same and I was involved in a killing (no matter how righteous), the engraving would be the first piece of evidence shown to the jury. It would show evidence towards "intent".

Concerning "government employees aren't allowed to speak or show any sort of vulgarity/offensiveness on their jobs"...This must not apply to cops. I've seen countless videos of cops screaming profanties at citizens. Or maybe Florida trains its officers better than other locales.

CaliFFL

Make_My_Day wrote: »

It used to be that a LEO had to actually see a weapon before firing. Now all it takes is suspicious movement.

I've wondered about this as well. How a "movement" is a threat, specifically in this situation. The cop had EVERY advantage. If the guy actually pulled a gun from behind his back, the cop had the drop on him and could legitimately light him up.

This guy was blubbering, begging not to be shot. There was no aggression, no attitude, only fear, and a real attempt to comply.

If I ever find myself in a similar situation, I'm laying prone, hands extended and flat, and not moving at all. They can come to me. If the cops decide to shoot me for not moving, maybe a jury would convict, although I doubt it.

breamfisher

Oh, I've seen 'em do it. I've also known a few to get reprimanded for it.

As for the dustcover showing intent: I agree with your statement about a prosecutor using it to show your intent. I just don't think that having that written on your firearm actually shows intent.

It's partially for the same reason that I won't have any sort of Punisher/Spartan/Mandalorian shooting gear. It actually means little, but can be used to twist the narrative.

breamfisher

CaliFFL wrote: »

If I ever find myself in a similar situation, I'm laying prone, hands extended and flat, and not moving at all. They can come to me. If the cops decide to shoot me for not moving, maybe a jury would convict, although I doubt it.

You were laying in a threatening manner...



Sent from my SM-S907VL using Tapatalk

bobbyrlf3

Sorry that the video is not complete; I watched the entire video as well, and I saw nothing that justified the officer's actions. This kid was immediately compliant and displayed non-threatening posture throughout the incident. The officer had every opportunity to detain the suspect and immobilize him before proceeding to the room; his instructions were contradictory and confusing, whether a person was drunk or not. This guy had no business being a cop.

tennmike

Finally got to watch the video on Youtube last night after a search. That was seriously a case of unjustified manslaughter. Cop doesn't even deserve to be with the rubber gun squad. He was dealing with an intoxicated and scared poopless individual. That takes a skill set he obviously lacked, so he went to the trigger first.

terminator012

tennmike wrote: »

Finally got to watch the video on Youtube last night after a search. That was seriously a case of unjustified manslaughter. Cop doesn't even deserve to be with the rubber gun squad. He was dealing with an intoxicated and scared poopless individual. That takes a skill set he obviously lacked, so he went to the trigger first.

I agree. I would have a hard time justifying this shooting.

Diver43

tennmike wrote: »

Finally got to watch the video on Youtube last night after a search. That was seriously a case of unjustified manslaughter. Cop doesn't even deserve to be with the rubber gun squad. He was dealing with an intoxicated and scared poopless individual. That takes a skill set he obviously lacked, so he went to the trigger first.

That is exactly my thought. I have no idea how the cop was not charged with man slaughter. If there is doubt I lean toward believing the uniform, but not in this case.

Teach

Hmmmm- - - - -an unemployed murderer without the protection of a badge or "protective custody" in a jail- - - - -sounds like an excellent opportunity for someone to apply a little "street justice".

Johnny reb

What was on the officers dust cover? I don't think you can say what you would have or would not of done unless you have been in the same situation. The officer issued orders to be followed and repeatedly told the suspect to do as he said and nothing else. The suspect was complying until he took his right hand and looked like he was reaching behind his back. At that moment you have split seconds to react. The suspect could of easily pulled a weapon. I was in a similar incident in Afghanistan and it took a bit of a different turn.

Jayhawker

Johnny reb wrote: »

What was on the officers dust cover? I don't think you can say what you would have or would not of done unless you have been in the same situation. The officer issued orders to be followed and repeatedly told the suspect to do as he said and nothing else. The suspect was complying until he took his right hand and looked like he was reaching behind his back. At that moment you have split seconds to react. The suspect could of easily pulled a weapon. I was in a similar incident in Afghanistan and it took a bit of a different turn.

" You're FXXXED"......

This guy was entirely too wound up, screaming orders and threats at the guy when he had plenty of opportunity to move in and take the guy into custody....

Johnny reb

I understand what you're saying and I would of handled it differently. I believe once the officers had him come forward and drop to the ground, they should have moved forward toward him while keeping him covered. That would in my view of allowed them to take him into custody.

CaliFFL

I was talking to a coworker who's also a part time deputy. He said, "Why didn"t they tell him to turn around, hands in the air, and walk backwards to my voice?"

bisley

CaliFFL wrote: »

I watched the unedited version of the video.

Why didn't the cops simply walk 10 feet down the hallway while they were on the ground in submissive positions and cuff them without all the shouting and confusing instructions? The cop screamed at him "if you make a mistake, I'll shoot you." and "cross your feet and crawl to me". Yeah, no opportunity for a mistake there.

For once, I actually agree with you on a cop thread. The guy was drunk, there were multiple policemen holding long guns on him, and he had already reached to the middle of his back once, and they didn't fire. They already knew they could take him out before he could draw and shoot, so why not wait until you actually see an object in his hand? On top of all that, the guy giving him all of the complicated commands (for a drunk) was not the one who shot him.