As I watched the vid, I assumed the officer screaming out all the orders to Shaver was Brailsford himself. It turns out that was a different cop.
Shaver was obviously terrified of the police and the encounter, and did the best he was capable of to comply with all orders. The order to "crawl" was confusing, as the police meant that to mean shuffling forward on one's knees while having hands raised in the air, while the traditional meaning of that term means being on one's hands AND knees. Shaver dropped to his hands upon hearing the order to "crawl", which happened just before he was killed.
In a civilian context, it wouldn't be just Brailsford put on trial for murder, but both Brailsford and the officer who issued all the horrible screamed shouts and threats of death against Shaver. Both would have been put on trial. But because these were police, only Brailsford was put on trial. But Brailsford is not responsible for escalating and intimidating Shaver to the point where he could hardly think & comply. He was only responsible for pulling the trigger when he lost sight of Shaver's hand. I do believe if it was Brailsford who was screaming all the orders in addition to shooting, he would have gotten at best a hung jury, and very possibly a conviction.
In this case, two cops contributed to the killing of Shaver, but only one was put on trial, which was the fatal flaw in gaining a conviction. Shaver was obviously in complete terror of these police, because of how the police behaved, and yet they got a free pass on that point.
It is outrageous that civilians are expected to be as well trained about how to behave around cops as cops are trained to treat every person in every situation as a potential cop killer. Shaver was not trained about how to behave around the police, and because of that, he is now dead and the police are not criminally accountable.
While there was no criminal conviction, I do expect a wrongful death suit to follow for the reasons stated, and that the police (actually taxpayers) will pay out handsomely for this needless killing.
If there is a lesson from this, anyone in a similar situation should simply stay flat on the floor, spread eagle, and refuse to move even when ordered to do so. Do not rise to your knees, cross your ankles or comply with any order to move that could potentially give any cop with a gun any reason to fear for his life, because you know that you may not understand any order given, no matter how simple the order may be ("crawl" being the operative example in Shaver's case). Staying spread eagle face down without moving would do that. The only reason the cops wanted this guy to move toward them is because they suspected a shooter may be in the hotel room, and they didn't want to approach that room with him in the way. But that problem is THEIR problem, not your problem, especially when you know for a fact that they are in no danger whatsoever. YOUR problem is to keep them from shooting you, and you do that by staying down, staying spread eagle and refusing to move at all even when ordered to do so.
It is outrageous that civilians are expected to be as well trained about how to behave around cops as cops are trained to treat every person in every situation as a potential cop killer. Shaver was not trained about how to behave around the police, and because of that …
In this case, training didn’t need to be how to behave around cops…..training needed to have been on how to act intelligently and rationally so that cops never would have been called.
Somewhere along his life span, Shaver needed to have been trained that it’s a BAD idea to point a rifle out the window of a motel room with people in a swimming pool below.
But then sometimes even training doesn’t work, because:
… he is now dead and the police are not criminally accountable.
He is now dead because he acted stupidly and “suddenly moved” his hand towards his waistband after being instructed not to do so….the police were not found to be criminally accountable and therefore acquitted.
You assumed he was pointing gun out window. Can you show me a picture. No you cannot.
When I watched the video it brought tears to my eye for the man brutally gunned down. I've showed it to wife, kids, kids friend's. 100 percent agree cop was wrong. I suspect someone will murder that cop someday.
I'd love to see misterwhite try to comply with the Simon says commands or be shot.
Come on, now, at least be fair….you cannot say it is a lie and he didn’t "believe" that.
It maybe you opinion….but it is only your opinion.
All his crawling etc would have exposed a gun. They made him play a life or death game of Simon says. He was on ground cooperating and that asshole just gunned him down because he wanted to "fuck" him like his gun said.
The contents of the body camera footage had been described to the public before, when Brailsford was first charged, but the video itself was withheld until this morning. NBC notes:
The detective investigating the shooting had agreed Shaver's movement was similar to reaching for a pistol, but has said it also looked as though Shaver was pulling up his loose-fitting basketball shorts that had fallen down as he was ordered to crawl.
The investigator noted he did not see anything that would have prevented officers from simply handcuffing Shaver as he was on the floor.
Forcing Shaver to crawl toward the police like this increased the likelihood that Shaver would lose balance and make wild movements, and Langley's bizarre orders were probably confusing even to a sober person.
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.
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.
An inscription on a dust cover is a very common thing and many people do it. They run the gauntlet. There are a number of suggestions on the Web.
Brailsford had used the rifle in any number of other situations before and had never shot anyone. The fact that the inscription was on the dust cover had nothing to do with this situation since it never had before.
Remember: The inscription on the dust cover of the rifle didn’t cause Brailsford to shoot….it was Shaver’s sudden hand movement towards his waist that caused Brailsford to shoot.
Therefore the judge was correct is not permitting it to me mentioned at the trial since it was prejudicial.
You are attempting to use it here to prejudice others so the prejudicial point is well made….it would indeed have been highly prejudicial.
There you go again….trying ever so hard to make a prejudicial statement.
Of course Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Susie Charbel did NOT show the entire 18-minute video….she only showed the entire portion of the video that depicted the killing. Charbel adequately covered everything necessary for the prosecutor and the defense as far as viewing the video in her opening statement.
It is during your moments like this for me to truly understand why you are such a simpleton …
… you cop-sucking prick.
When all you have left is insulting name calling….I guess that means you are finished and that you lose.
Of course Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Susie Charbel did NOT show the entire 18-minute video….she only showed the entire portion of the video that depicted the killing.
Oh - you mean they showed the part of the video that was beneficial to the cop?
Of course Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Susie Charbel did NOT show the entire 18-minute video….she only showed the entire portion of the video that depicted the killing.
… they showed the part of the video that was beneficial to the cop?
No, you are extremely confused. It was the Deputy Maricopa County Attorney who showed the part of the video. It was not meant to be beneficial to the cop since she was prosecuting the cop and wanted him to be convicted. Had she not wanted him to be convicted, she would never have brought charges against the cop in the first place.
Oh - you mean …
What I mean is that we need to trust the judicial process and respect the courts’ decisions.
We must have confidence in the due process of the criminal justice system to review the facts completely and accurately.
If we don’t, then we have no justice system and without a justice system we have no law and order….then we have no country.
We should not cherry pick and support the verdicts we agree with….then be highly verbal to actively and profoundly condemn those verdicts with which we disagree.
I have no doubt should any similar facts as presented in this case with video to support it, ever be presented again….the judicial system will continue to do its job and the matter will again be placed before a jurors.
