In 2017, a jury acquitted Brailsford of second-degree murder and reckless manslaughter. This is because juries are instructed to judge officers not by how a normal civilian would respond, but by how a reasonable police officer is trained to respond to a threat, real or imagined. As Reason's Jacob Sullum wrote, the acquittal showed that cops on trial 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."
So did his defense team say he was trained to shoot without proper justification? Because applying a lower standard to someone who has received training for these types of situations doesn't seem to match that jury instruction.
If you've seen the video, you know that Shaver got shot because he failed to comply with Brailsford's commands. And you also know that the reason he failed to comply is because those commands contradicted eachother.
Keep your hands above your head. Lie down on the ground. Crawl toward me.
Dude gets shot the second he tries to crawl, because, obviously, he needs his hands to be able to crawl.
The jury were obviously braindead. There's no way Brailsford was trained to order people to perform conflicting actions and then shoot them for their inevitable failure to do so.
Shaver was inebriated and was actually being asked to preform a very difficult task for most people:
Turn away from me, put your hands in the air, get on you knees with your hands in the air, once on the ground put your hands on the back of your head, interlock your fingers on the back of your head, put your ankles over one another, then walk on your knees backwards to the sound of my voice.
That's what he was supposed to do (which is ridiculous). He also got contradictory directions from other people who were shouting at the same time.
The man who shot Shaver wasn't actually the one who was supposed to be giving Shaver orders.
Shaver was basically so confused by the plethora of instructions he thought the best bet would be to (facing the officers) crawl slowly on his hands and knees towards them.
The officer who shot Shaver apparently interpreted that as an aggressive act.
It's the same in other states. In fact Qualified Immunity is written into the law.
Don't know if related but I recall in Texas a shoplifter stole something and ran out of the store. An off-duty officer at the store shot him in the back and killed him, and the jury said that's ok. I don't have any sympathy for crooks, but I doubt you or I would have gotten away with it. Even in Texas you're advised to drag the dead body back into your house after you shoot them.
So did his defense team say he was trained to shoot without proper justification? Because applying a lower standard to someone who has received training for these types of situations doesn't seem to match that jury instruction.
If you've seen the video, you know that Shaver got shot because he failed to comply with Brailsford's commands. And you also know that the reason he failed to comply is because those commands contradicted eachother.
Keep your hands above your head. Lie down on the ground. Crawl toward me.
Dude gets shot the second he tries to crawl, because, obviously, he needs his hands to be able to crawl.
The jury were obviously braindead. There's no way Brailsford was trained to order people to perform conflicting actions and then shoot them for their inevitable failure to do so.
Shaver was inebriated and was actually being asked to preform a very difficult task for most people:
Turn away from me, put your hands in the air, get on you knees with your hands in the air, once on the ground put your hands on the back of your head, interlock your fingers on the back of your head, put your ankles over one another, then walk on your knees backwards to the sound of my voice.
That's what he was supposed to do (which is ridiculous). He also got contradictory directions from other people who were shouting at the same time.
The man who shot Shaver wasn't actually the one who was supposed to be giving Shaver orders.
Shaver was basically so confused by the plethora of instructions he thought the best bet would be to (facing the officers) crawl slowly on his hands and knees towards them.
The officer who shot Shaver apparently interpreted that as an aggressive act.
It's the same in other states. In fact Qualified Immunity is written into the law.
Don't know if related but I recall in Texas a shoplifter stole something and ran out of the store. An off-duty officer at the store shot him in the back and killed him, and the jury said that's ok. I don't have any sympathy for crooks, but I doubt you or I would have gotten away with it. Even in Texas you're advised to drag the dead body back into your house after you shoot them.
It is legal to kill someone in Texas to prevent theft. They have the loosest self defense laws in the nation.
Unless it was a thief whose name sounds suspiciously like Armed Robbery.
Whoever advises you to drag a dead body anywhere is just as retarded as the cops who shot Shaver.