Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: Scared Cops Are Scary
Source:
Reason
URL Source: http://reason.com/archives/2017/12/13/scared-cops-are-scary
Published: Dec 13, 2017
Author: Jacob Sullum
Post Date: 2017-12-18 06:46:28 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1672
Comments: 11
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. The acquittal of the officer who killed Daniel Shaver illustrates a double standard in judging self-defense claims.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
... that the accused is judged only by a jury of his peers... just like OJ or Zimmerman. That's how our system has always been set up. Don't like it? Move in with Ba Ba Ba butt-buddy Bucky I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
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. A “regular person” eh?, Just what in the Hell is a “regular person?” Let me define a regular person for you. Getting right to the point, a regular person in someone who shouldn’t bother reading intelligent posts. He should immediately shut down the browser and head out to find a motivational seminar or use his money to get self help books written by highly unsuccessful people. If a regular person is highly ambitious, then he can begin to update his resume and seek to find another hourly or salary job that requires no upheaval in responsibility or change in skill-set. Cutting to the chase. A regular person should be avoided like the plague and you can see the life a regular person lives and the little impact he has simply by only reading your posts. The regular person will only “slow you down” so you definitely should not associate with him….except by an occasional smack-down post to him. So I ask you: Who in the Hell wants to be a regular person and much more importantly, who wants to be judged like a regular person? I don’t and probably no one else here does…with of course the exception of the three stooge idiots whom I won’t bother to name. Another fine mess of shit your are stepping into….Ollie. WHAT? “As the Arizona Republic put it.” Astonishment Unleased. You are now using that piece of media trash as a source. My goodness, will you never stop going from the ridiculous to the sublime. Everyone with any sense here in the Valley of the Sun and especially anyyone who is a conservative, never reads or would give credence to any of the trash the Arizona Republic puts out. Hell, man….I recognized the paper for its lack of significant contributions thirty years ago and cancelled my subscription. And since when does an intelligent person need anyone to “put it” as “they want you to believe it.” Why not quote exactly what the jurors were told and let everyone decide how they want to “put it?” The trashy paper could have done that and why didn’t they? Oh, I know….if they did that, then they would be unable to mislead people. Right? Sure that’s right.
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. (Shaver) 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. Get the fuck over it, stupoid asshole….and move on. The cop properly followed prescribed police procedures, the jury determined that he did and they acquitted the cop. This is the end of the story.
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.
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.
His two accomplices were treated the same way and they weren't shot. F**K your Monday Morning Quarterbacking.
Just be glad that a "regular" libtarded LameStreamMedia person like you, doesn't have to respond to gun related calls... you just have to spin the incident all yella like from the safety of your newsroom. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Fuck off, shit stain. Zimmerman was a "regular" person and he was acquitted from shooting an unarmed person. A jury is how we roll... I'm sick of your pussified bitching because you are a cop hating snowflake. Shut your shit eating maw. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
The acquittal of the officer who killed Daniel Shaver illustrates...
#2. To: GrandIsland (#1)
... that the accused is judged only by a jury of his peers.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#3. To: Deckard, GrandIsland (#2)
(Edited)
Jurors 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.
#4. To: Gatlin (#3)
Jurors were told to judge him based on "how a reasonable officer would act, versus a regular person with no police training,"
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#5. To: Deckard (#4)
Jurors were told to judge him based on "how a reasonable officer would act, versus a regular person with no police training,"
Of Course….Naturally….Absolutely….Without Question! This was NO regular/ordinary person confronting a drunk who had just been pointing a rifle out a motel window and shot it in the motel room. This was a cop doing that and following his training. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY that the officer should have been judged. Juries judge on facts while following laws. They do not judge on how you, other cop-haters, the Arizona Republic or any other media trash wants a cop to be judged. Brailsford's acquittal shows that cops benefit from a double standard.
This is the same old mantra bullshit you cop-haters have used for years and it’s still on the first page of your play book and number one on your list of talking points. Sounds catchy….but it simply is not true. Cops are judge on the law….the same as ordinary citizens are also judged on the law. I know that it’s tough for your severely biased mind to accept this….but that is how it it and that is a fact. Go read court proceedings where cops were tried and then do the same when civilians were tried. Do so with an objective open mind and you will learn that I speak the truth….as always. Unlike ordinary citizens, they can kill with impunity as long as they say they were afraid, whether or not their fear was justified.
That is some more of your playbook bullshit. Go look and you will find cases where ordinary people shot someone because they feared for their lives….the same as you will find cases where cops shot someone because they feared for the lives. The law is the law. It is what our justice system goes by. If you cannot accept that….you must at least get used to it, for you have no other choice. (Shaver) was confused by the strange and contradictory orders that Sgt. Charles Langley barked at him.
Shaver was DRUNK. The other man and woman were able to follow what you and some others call “contradictory” instructions and not get shot. 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.
That’s some GREAT “Monday morning quarterbacking” there, Kaepernick. There was no problem while the terrified and intoxicated man was crawling towards him….UNTIL that terrified and intoxicated mand made a distinctive movement and REACHED for his waistband. At which time he was justifiably shot. I am not the one saying “justifiably” shot. It is the jury who said it….and that is what matters under our judicial system.
#6. To: Gatlin (#5)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#7. To: Deckard (#0)
Daniel Shaver got drunk and did something stupid. But he did not deserve or need to die for it.
#8. To: misterwhite (#7)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#9. To: Deckard (#8)
#10. To: Deckard (#2)
because a "regular person" would never get away with shooting an unarmed man
#11. To: Deckard (#4)
(Edited)
Brailsford's acquittal shows that cops benefit from a double standard.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]