Ex-Arizona cop aquitted of murder charge in 2016 shooting

[cyclone24 1,814]

You mean, .like this tough guy?

 

Surprised he didn't do a TJ Hooker barrel roll like the other cop. LOL

Haha...that would be sweet. Or like in Starsky and Hutch (vaughn/ Wilson version) where he tries to shoot the bad guy from around his back and shoots the seargent...ha.

[tanatastic 2,061]

Sorry guys but the guy was reported to have a weapon. Of course he’s going to act scared and innocent. If I’m a criminal with a gun, my goal is to whine and get the cop to lower his guard so I can smoke him when he’s thinking “aww this guy is innocent, I should lower my guard.”. What if the video was the cop being cool and the perp blasting him? Anyone with sense can see he was acquitted for a reason, the guy reached, sorry. If I’m a cop I’m not taking that chance, I have a split second to analyze the situation and decide wether snowflake uproar is worth losing my life over. Dumb clowns..”oh this was murder!”, morons.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,644]

It wasn't a split second decision. He had established control and the subject was compliant. Of course the longer it went on the possibility of the subject not doing exactly what he was told increases. Subject face down arms extended is the best you could hope for on a gun run. It doesn't get any better than that. You make your move and get over there and cuff him. Why make him move at all? That only gives a bad guy opportunity. Bad shoot. Horrible shoot, the worst I've ever seen.

[tanatastic 2,061]

It wasn't a split second decision. He had established control and the subject was compliant. Of course the longer it went on the possibility of the subject not doing exactly what he was told increases. Subject face down arms extended is the best you could hope for on a gun run. It doesn't get any better than that. You make your move and get over there and cuff him. Why make him move at all? That only gives a bad guy opportunity. Bad shoot. Horrible shoot, the worst I've ever seen.

I agree he had him and face down arms out with backup is plenty. But not the worst shoot at all when he reached for a possible concealed weapon.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,644]

I agree he had him and face down arms out with backup is plenty. But not the worst shoot at all when he reached for a possible concealed weapon.

I think you're letting your political opponents define your response to this. Yes, liberals treat every police shooting the same, they always find a reason, rarely if ever giving the cop the benefit of the doubt. And your reaction 99 pct of the time is right, because they are so often wrong. Dont let your enemies define you. Use reason and objectivity instead of instinctive reaction to them. You can't win them all. Almost all, but not all.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

I think you're letting your political opponents define your response to this. Yes, liberals treat every police shooting the same, they always find a reason, rarely if ever giving the cop the benefit of the doubt. And your reaction 99 pct of the time is right, because they are so often wrong. Dont let your enemies define you. Use reason and objectivity instead of instinctive reaction to them. You can't win them all. Almost all, but not all.

Holy sh!t. This must be one of the signs of the apocalypse...

[Brad GLuckman 518]

Sorry guys but the guy was reported to have a weapon. Of course hes going to act scared and innocent. If Im a criminal with a gun, my goal is to whine and get the cop to lower his guard so I can smoke him when hes thinking aww this guy is innocent, I should lower my guard.. What if the video was the cop being cool and the perp blasting him? Anyone with sense can see he was acquitted for a reason, the guy reached, sorry. If Im a cop Im not taking that chance, I have a split second to analyze the situation and decide wether snowflake uproar is worth losing my life over. Dumb clowns..oh this was murder!, morons.

 

Coming from the same guy that tried to say the Walter Scott shooting was a hoax ...

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=443984&view=&hl=&fromsearch=1

[listen2me 23 1,542]

Not surprised be got off. They always do in these cases. Not much to see here.

[wiffleball 4,640]

 

Coming from the same guy that tried to say the Walter Scott shooting was a hoax ...

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=443984&view=&hl=&fromsearch=1

Good lord.

[vuduchile 1,941]

I heard today that the guy with the rifle and cam did pull the trigger but was NOT the same guy giving the verbal orders.

 

Apparently, the voice we hear giving all the commands was a senior officer off camera.

[bandrus1 413]

I heard today that the guy with the rifle and cam did pull the trigger but was NOT the same guy giving the verbal orders.

 

Apparently, the voice we hear giving all the commands was a senior officer off camera.

 

 

dont you think that would have come out by now?

[vuduchile 1,941]

 

 

dont you think that would have come out by now?

Those "furtive movements" might very well have given Brailsford, in the jury's eyes, a legal right to shoot Shaver. But the officer's unprofessional conduct, seeming inexperience, and the confusing commands we hear being issued by a SWAT officer, directly and indirectly influenced Shaver's reactions, which resulted in the shooting. Here's how:

 

The SWAT team member issuing the initial commands instigated non-compliant situation.

 

In a quarter-century of participating in and leading tactical resolution operations, I have never heard a law enforcement professional use such offensive -- almost taunting -- rhetoric. The vocal police officer tasked with directing the operation appeared hell-bent on baiting a confused but receptive and compliant subject into making a deadly mistake.

 

Was this related to a dysfunctional team or to this officer's inexperience or lack of emotional maturity and control? What police executive with oversight of tactical operations could have felt this officer possessed the leadership and interpersonal skills necessary to de-escalate potentially combustible situations?

 

In high-stress in extremis situations with a noncompliant subject who purposely disregards commands, it is understandable that law enforcement officers may issue loud, get-your-attention directions -- sometimes laced with profanity that can be commensurate with the gravity of a potentially dangerous encounter. But these cases typically involve a physical confrontation or potentially deadly standoff.

 

Absent the dispatch call of "weapon(s) in a hotel room," there is no evidence on the video that justifies the officer's need to vocally ratchet up the temperature. Listening to him issue commands was revolting -- he comes off as a drunk-with-power bully who enjoys toying with his prey.

 

Examples of inappropriate and unconscionable language:

 

(0:26) "Apparently we have a failure for you to comprehend simple instructions."

 

(0:49) "Shut up! I'm not here to be tactful or diplomatic with you. You listen. You obey."

 

(2:08) (to a woman who had exited the room ahead of Shaver) "Young lady, shut up and listen."

 

(4:10) (screaming) "You think you're going to fall, you better fall on your face."

 

The officer issuing commands also referred to Shaver, 26, as "young man." A simple "sir" or "ma'am" is standard professional vernacular in dealing with potential arrestees. It can be issued sternly, but respectfully. In my estimation, his use of the word "young" when addressing Shaver and his hotel guest was as a condescending pejorative.

 

Failure of SWAT's senior onscene leadership to acknowledge mitigating factors.

 

When issuing commands, an officer needs to immediately assess external factors. Can the subject hear me? Is there a language barrier? Are my commands concise and clear enough? The confusing and contradictory commands exacerbated the situation. In incidents like this, officers must have rehearsed in training -- countless times -- the commands to be used in high-risk arrests. Brevity and succinctness are critical.

 

An inquiry was made as to whether or not Shaver had been drinking. If someone is inebriated, their default response may be a denial. Communication -- reading the signs -- involves intuitive analysis that takes in a person's body language, tone of voice, and selected verbiage. Police posted at DUI checkpoints are trained for the telltale physical signs of alcohol consumption.

 

This officer also should have noted how visibly shaken and fearful the subject was. It is true that duplicitous subjects may attempt to employ a ruse to get the officer to relax or drop his guard. But in this instance, you had a tactical team, strength in numbers, and a position of command resulting from the element of surprise.

 

My belief is that as confused (and inebriated) as Shaver was, the steady volley of confusing shouted commands frustrated him and he assumed a pose he felt was consistent with an arrest, i.e., placing his hands behind his back. His confused state and reflexive reaction to place hands behind his back could then be "interpreted" as "going for a weapon."

 

Two more gestures to his backside appear to be his attempts to pull his pants up while complying with a flurry of confusing commands. While we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, my assessment is that this officer was not equipped with the necessary behavioral assessment experience.

 

The SWAT team disregarded arrest protocols.

 

What appears obvious from the video is the senior onscene officer's inability to discern that subject was struggling to find his balance while complying with the confusing commands. To those speculating as to why he would have been asked to cross his ankles, this is standard arrest protocol in a high-risk scenario. If a subject is lying prone or kneeling with their ankles crossed, the un-crossing of ankles requires an additional movement prior to any effort to escape or physically confront arresting officers. This provides officers more reaction time.

 

But asking a subject to crawl forward with crossed ankles is not a standard safe arrest practice or protocol. The most forward operator does not typically deliver commands, as his specific role is to focus on the door down the hallway from which the subjects had just exited. Shaver could have been asked to lie prone and await cuffing from advancing officers, while this "hallway monitor" remains trained on the door ahead. Then, the advance man (Brailsford) could hurriedly move forward past a prone Shaver (with interlaced fingers behind his head) and then a "cuffing team" could immediately move forward in trace, and effect the handcuffing of the subject.

 

Alternatively, Shaver could have been put on his knees, with fingers interlaced and hands placed atop his head. Brailsford could have had him rotate in a circle and then remain facing away from responding officers, so police could view his beltline and any potential secreted weapons. Shaver could have then been instructed to lift his shirt while facing away. This gives police valuable time to assess the threat and respond with deadly force appropriately if Shaver were to pull a weapon, spin around and attempt to locate a target.

 

At trial, Deputy County Attorney Susie Charbel told the jury that Shaver was intoxicated and still referred to Brailsford's actions as that of a "killer."

 

And while Brailsford, as the shooter, stood trial alone, the team's leadership surely deserves a fair amount of the criticism. The toxicology report would definitively chronicle what Shaver's blood alcohol content level was. His apparent alcohol impairment combined with the rational fear any reasonable person would be consumed with in a similar situation. These circumstances then abruptly collided bluntly with the unforced errors committed by the tactical team --- and the result was a shooting that shouldn't have occurred.

 

Officers should have gathered more intelligence.

 

Allow for potential cooperation from the two subjects in your custody to provide you better context and intelligence. Ask questions about weaponry in the room and, if subject admits as much, query the purpose for having them. Maybe Shaver could have explained his professional need for pellet guns and advised where they were located. At a minimum, it would have applied context. You never trust without verification, but Shaver's explanation could have been combined with information investigators might have gathered from employees at the front desk while SWAT was handling the threat upstairs.

 

Many of the police shootings that have drawn attention to the inappropriate and all too often deadly actions of officers illustrate the role of race and implicit bias in their devastating outcomes. The case of Philip Brailsford illustrates something different -- a young, inexperienced police officer who was part of a team comprised of specialists (one who exhibited unprofessionalism and lack of expertise in issuing commands) ill-suited to read a less-than-complex set of circumstances, leading to a series of preventable errors that resulted in the infuriatingly "legal" execution of a man.

 

In the numerous officer-involved shootings I've reviewed, I can often provide a sensible explanation for a tactical team's actions or find benefit of the doubt to apply.

 

There are neither here.

 

A previous version of this article incorrectly identified Philip Brailsford as the officer giving commands in the video. Another officer testified during the trial that he, not Brailsford, was issuing those commands so this article has been updated to reflect that the other officer was the one giving commands.

 

View on CNN

© 2017 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | AdChoices

 

 

Read more news from CNN

VIEW IN APP

[vuduchile 1,941]

Cliff notes from above:

 

A previous version of this article incorrectly identified Philip Brailsford as the officer giving commands in the video. Another officer testified during the trial that he, not Brailsford, was issuing those commands so this article has been updated to reflect that the other officer was the one giving commands.

[bandrus1 413]

Cliff notes from above:

 

A previous version of this article incorrectly identified Philip Brailsford as the officer giving commands in the video. Another officer testified during the trial that he, not Brailsford, was issuing those commands so this article has been updated to reflect that the other officer was the one giving commands.

 

 

welp..... there we have it, thanks for the follow up

[peenie 1,690]

That was a really good post vudu.

I can see anyone, any normal human, could've moved and then been shot by that police officer. I myself might have been confused and would have wound up dead.

Once again, it's not about making cops out to be bad people or angels out of suspects, but a change in when the police should be allowed to use their guns.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Thanks for the update. Now we have two cops that need to be fired.

[joeshushu 51]

Why have him crawling forward. Just get on the groud, hands out front and have partner run up to secure him. I mean it was obvious the kid was upset not really thinking clearly.

[joeshushu 51]

I didn’t see the version with them trying to open the door. I think his partner was concerned he would get blown away if he didn’t get the right key in the door fast. Notice how he gingerly stepped in the line of fire, and almost said hold your fire they gave me two keys please let me try the second one. If it wasn’t so tragic, this almost could turn into a Saturday Night Skit.

[wiffleball 4,640]

Sort of expands upon what I said earlier. This whole bullshit about NO! your left ankle over your right blah blah blah!

 

Is total bullshit and completely unwarranted. You're not playing a game of Simon Says for fucksake.

 

I know there are jurisdictional issues, but one thing I'd like to see solved is the fact that so many incompetent cops involved in bad shoots end up going down the road 20 miles and getting the exact same job elsewhere.

 

Also, as I've said repeatedly, it pisses me off that we grill 16 year old pop stars with the media but let these coward cops hide behind lawyers and slink away without being held accountable as adults and human beings.

[Fireballer 2,382]

Why have him crawling forward. Just get on the groud, hands out front and have partner run up to secure him. I mean it was obvious the kid was upset not really thinking clearly.

Funnel of death. Theyre trained not to move into and area of limited visibility or egress. Not saying right, or wrong, but theyre trained that way. Ive talked to about 100 cops about this. The general consensus...dude giving commands probably exacerbated the situation, but it was a very charged situation. An overwhelming majority of them said, absolutely they would have fired at the guy for reaching in such a closed in area, especially since there was a report of a gun.

[wiffleball 4,640]

This seems to be the new fall back for incompetent cops. It's not my fault! That's the way I was trained! As if they're not required or capable of any sort of situational awareness or professional judgment.

 

Oh great, let's give lethal Force to guys who have less capability and responsibilities in these circumstances than a Walmart greeter. Nothing could go wrong there.

 

Other cops have already said that the entire process is aberrant at best. And could have been handled much more professionally and left everyone feeling safer.

[Fireballer 2,382]

This seems to be the new fall back for incompetent cops. It's not my fault! That's the way I was trained!

Uh...yeah thats how it works. Let your a$$ kill someone and you specifically went outside of your scope if training and your a$$ is cooked. Lets say an EMT decides to use a defibrillator on your family member and they went outside theyre scope of training . You gonna say, "oh, good try"?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,644]

Funnel of death. Theyre trained not to move into and area of limited visibility or egress. Not saying right, or wrong, but theyre trained that way. Ive talked to about 100 cops about this. The general consensus...dude giving commands probably exacerbated the situation, but it was a very charged situation. An overwhelming majority of them said, absolutely they would have fired at the guy for reaching in such a closed in area, especially since there was a report of a gun.

I don't believe that.

[Fireballer 2,382]

I don't believe that.

What part?

 

HT,

 

I agree with your posts on most stuff here, and Ive read how you woulda handled it back in the day. But, what I posted is after talking to guys from patrolman up to major in a fully accredited metro dept of over 2000 officers. The dude giving commands was a doosh, but the kid woulda got shot by most cops.

 

And you guys dont think the prosecution didnt have experts witnesses on police tactics? If this was so out of norm, dude woulda been convicted.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,644]

What part?

 

HT,

 

I agree with your posts on most stuff here, and Ive read how you woulda handled it back in the day. But, what I posted is after talking to guys from patrolman up to major in a fully accredited metro dept of over 2000 officers. The dude giving commands was a doosh, but the kid woulda got shot by most cops.

 

And you guys dont think the prosecution didnt have experts witnesses on police tactics? If this was so out of norm, dude woulda been convicted.

Sorry. Any cop with any kind of experience on gun runs would have had that guy in cuffs way before all the nonsense commands started. Never heard or seen anything like that in my life. The guy was playing with him. I blame the fool giving the commands more than I do the shooter. Those cops had tactical superiority the whole time. Well lit, hands in view and a compliant subject in a prone position. You can't ask for much more. Those cops you talked to don't get out much.

[mmmmm...beer 691]

Sorry. Any cop with any kind of experience on gun runs would have had that guy in cuffs way before all the nonsense commands started. Never heard or seen anything like that in my life. The guy was playing with him. I blame the fool giving the commands more than I do the shooter. Those cops had tactical superiority the whole time. Well lit, hands in view and a compliant subject in a prone position. You can't ask for much more. Those cops you talked to don't get out much.

That whole scenerio looks like a couple super green guys making their first arrest.

 

I have to agree, imho a guy with some time on probably would have just walked up and just grabbed him.

 

It's pretty hard to watch.

[Fireballer 2,382]

Sorry. Any cop with any kind of experience on gun runs would have had that guy in cuffs way before all the nonsense commands started. Never heard or seen anything like that in my life. The guy was playing with him. I blame the fool giving the commands more than I do the shooter. Those cops had tactical superiority the whole time. Well lit, hands in view and a compliant subject in a prone position. You can't ask for much more. Those cops you talked to don't get out much.

Im not arguing that your way doesn't work 90 out of 100 times. Im saying that these guys were probably taught to not proceed down into a limited egress area. Most organizations nowadays arent taking that chance. If this was actually a video of a cop being shot by someone hiding around the corner, everyones opinion would be different. What do you think the opinions were of the experts witnesses in police tactics?

 

Oh, and my guys "get out" plenty. Anually in the top 10 US cities for murders per capita. They run just a few gun calls.

 

I do agree that dude giving commands is major doosh.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,644]

Im not arguing that your way doesn't work 90 out of 100 times. Im saying that these guys were probably taught to not proceed down into a limited egress area. Most organizations nowadays arent taking that chance. If this was actually a video of a cop being shot by someone hiding around the corner, everyones opinion would be different. What do you think the opinions were of the experts witnesses in police tactics?

 

Oh, and my guys "get out" plenty. Anually in the top 10 US cities for murders per capita. They run just a few gun calls.

It's all about the hands. The hands are the whole enchilada and they were visible and not a threat unless he moved. And the idiot giving the commands is the one who told him to move.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,644]

That whole scenerio looks like a couple super green guys making their first arrest.

 

I have to agree, imho a guy with some time on probably would have just walked up and just grabbed him.

 

It's pretty hard to watch.

You know it. Because you've done it. Anyone who has would never partake in theattics. There is no substitute for experience. None.

[Fireballer 2,382]

It's all about the hands. The hands are the whole enchilada and they were visible and not a threat unless he moved. And the idiot giving the commands is the one who told him to move.

I dont think this operation goes down like this in an open area. The hands they initially were worried about werent his. It was the possibility of someone around the corner. That why they didnt go get him. In an open area, this kid isnt crawling, they cuff him on spot.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,644]

I dont think this operation goes down like this in an open area. The hands they initially were worried about werent his. It was the possibility of someone around the corner. That why they didnt go get him. In an open area, this kid isnt crawling, they cuff him on spot.

They were so worried about someone else they focused everything on the one guy? They barely paid attention to the other person 2 ft away. Take cover then and give your commands if you're so worried.

[vuduchile 1,941]

IMO, the revelation about who was giving the commands changes culpability quite a bit.

 

Its hard to hold him completely accountable when his senior officer, whos taken charge of the situation talks to a suspect like that, and he reacts accordingly.

 

Theyre jointly responsible for the bad shoot, but it feels much less like murder than I originally thought.