Scared Cops Are Scary
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Scared Cops Are Scary

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,819

    Scared Cops Are Scary

    According to the rules here, I am not supposed to post an article from an outside source without giving some of my own commentary. Well, OK, here it is: This sucks!!!!


    Jacob Sullum | Posted: Dec 13, 2017 12:01 AM

    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.

    And here's the video that jurors decided gave Brailsford "justification" to kill Shaver:


    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    According to the rules here, I am not supposed to post an article from an outside source without giving some of my own commentary. Well, OK, here it is: This sucks!!!!


    Jacob Sullum | Posted: Dec 13, 2017 12:01 AM

    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.

    And here's the video that jurors decided gave Brailsford "justification" to kill Shaver:


    My spouse showed me this video. Shaky The Cop is a serious problem and even if the numbers are low overall, how many average citizens are terrorized and then subsequently traumatized by this type of event occurring? The lucky ones I guess.

    Half the problem is training and the other half is ROE which leaves them wondering what it is an actual criminal threat presents or looks like when faced with it. I know following directions is important but so is restraint. That guy on the ground presented little actual threat IMO. That's all it takes I guess. A regular citizen has the police called on them for legally carrying (or not at all in this case) and they decide you should die for that.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    1,526
    The problem is not training.

    The problem is attitude.

    There is a real air of contempt for the non-police public on the part of a lot of cops. They believe that they shouldn't be accountable, no matter HOW egregious their actions.

    And when there is an incontrovertible example of police abuse of an innocent citizen, if that citizen sues for redress, they will in EVERY case be subject to a campaign of slander and defamation. If they're not White, it will be called the "ghetto lottery".

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    The problem is not training.

    The problem is attitude.

    There is a real air of contempt for the non-police public on the part of a lot of cops. They believe that they shouldn't be accountable, no matter HOW egregious their actions.

    And when there is an incontrovertible example of police abuse of an innocent citizen, if that citizen sues for redress, they will in EVERY case be subject to a campaign of slander and defamation. If they're not White, it will be called the "ghetto lottery".
    I don't know what each individual LEO's attitude is but I can see behaviors. We have 4 different departments train where I train and the behaviors I see for myself are training.

    I would say at least 50% of the cops, young and old, don't know as much about firearms as the typical membership at my club. My club does have a few Police Officers but the majority are just normal guys and gals with a day job like us. LEO's carry a gun on their hip for a living. If they don't have an equal or better level of knowledge than our group then it's problematic from the standpoint of firearm function all the way down to cause and effects for firing, and after firing, their issued weapon.

    This tape proves it's training. He wasn't the only cop there. No cop in such an advantageous position should have ever fired upon that citizen and their training should have stopped this long before it turned into a pissing contest with a scared or ego driven Officer. It starts at the top with regards to your good point about attitude but training should overcome attitude 100% of the time. He wasn't trained correctly and he drove that narrative.

    He should be held accountable and was not. Who knows how that verdict came about? And the NRA says nothing. Just as they did for Philando Castile. A legal firearm carrier.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gondor
    Posts
    1,909
    Am I the only one who could clearly see that Shaver's hand was empty BEFORE the cop started shooting?
    In an emergency individuals do not rise to the occasion, they fall to the level of their MASTERED training
    Barrett Tillman

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Eidolon View Post
    Am I the only one who could clearly see that Shaver's hand was empty BEFORE the cop started shooting?
    Not only were his hands empty but they were called for a long rifle which later proved to be a BB gun. That guy was scared stiff so I'm not thinking I ever saw a motive for defiance or an uncooperative person. They should be trained that drunks are not great at following directions and I still think he was cooperating regardless.
    That was criminal. Everything would have been fine until it wasn't.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,819
    That cop (Brailsford) couldn't wait to kill someone. Training nor attitude adjustment will ever address the practice of departments hiring psychopaths. Juries can't seem to grasp that acquitting psychopaths just because they're cops, ensures that departments will never tighten up their screening processes, and it at least suggests substantiation for the notion that departments actively recruit mental defects like Brailsford in the first place, making those assumed processes non-existent if true.

    Shaver may have been too drunk to successfully carry out orders, but Brailsford and/or whoever was barking out those orders baited him into making a fatal mistake when they ordered him to start crawling. It might've made some sense to have the female crawl out of the relatively tight space of the hallway, but once she was out of the way, it made absolutely no sense (other than to create "justification" to shoot him) to have Shaver start crawling. This scenario was set up from the get-go to create "legal" "justification" to shoot someone. The Kabuki Theater of the ensuing trial of Brailsford, where "prosecutor" acts as defense attorney in the way(s) they present the predetermined-outcome case is as common in cop-involved shootings as any courtroom circumstance one can imagine. Cases like this one are what ensures that more innocent and non-threatening citizens will be murdered with impunity by agents of the state. In essence, this is the training they receive.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  9. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    That cop (Brailsford) couldn't wait to kill someone. Training nor attitude adjustment will ever address the practice of departments hiring psychopaths. Juries can't seem to grasp that acquitting psychopaths just because they're cops, ensures that departments will never tighten up their screening processes, and it at least suggests substantiation for the notion that departments actively recruit mental defects like Brailsford in the first place, making those assumed processes non-existent if true.

    Shaver may have been too drunk to successfully carry out orders, but Brailsford and/or whoever was barking out those orders baited him into making a fatal mistake when they ordered him to start crawling. It might've made some sense to have the female crawl out of the relatively tight space of the hallway, but once she was out of the way, it made absolutely no sense (other than to create "justification" to shoot him) to have Shaver start crawling. This scenario was set up from the get-go to create "legal" "justification" to shoot someone. The Kabuki Theater of the ensuing trial of Brailsford, where "prosecutor" acts as defense attorney in the way(s) they present the predetermined-outcome case is as common in cop-involved shootings as any courtroom circumstance one can imagine. Cases like this one are what ensures that more innocent and non-threatening citizens will be murdered with impunity by agents of the state. In essence, this is the training they receive.

    Blues
    We'll, if you are correct that this cop was a psychopath then he's going to be more emboldened than ever by two facts. The whole thing was being filmed, he knew that, and he did it anyway and the simple fact that there were no consequences for his actions. The fact that his video "tactics" might be shown to other PD's as "training" or even their watching it off duty and thinking this was justified are some very scary ancillary outcomes of this travesty.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,819
    Quote Originally Posted by niceshootintex View Post
    We'll, if you are correct that this cop was a psychopath then he's going to be more emboldened than ever by two facts. The whole thing was being filmed, he knew that, and he did it anyway and the simple fact that there were no consequences for his actions. The fact that his video "tactics" might be shown to other PD's as "training" or even their watching it off duty and thinking this was justified are some very scary ancillary outcomes of this travesty.
    Actually, I'm not saying the video is the training. I'm saying the jury verdicts in cases like these are where they get their training.

    And "I'm" not saying Brailsford is a psychopath, the video screams that he is. I just saw and listened, and then commented, on the proof of that fact that the video provides.

    Regardless of what I'm saying or not saying though, like the article in my OP says, even Slager wasn't convicted by a SC jury for shooting an unarmed man in the back and then planting evidence on/near him to "justify" the shooting. All on video. Juries like that one and this one are common in cases of cop shootings. It is beyond reason to believe that such verdicts (or non-verdicts as the case may be) don't serve as training to line officers just as much, if not more, than any shoot/don't-shoot training they get in simulations. The juries are the trainers, not the cop commanders or peers of the murderers. The latter are just enablers who pat 'em on the back in most cases and tell 'em they did just fine, and there are many videos available proving the truth of that statement too.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast