Mesa AZ PIG COP MURDER: Daniel Shaver seen crawling, begging in disturbing video as MURDERED!

[Baz Ares]

MESA -- Police in Mesa, Arizona released disturbing body camera video on Thursday hours after a former officer was acquitted of a murder charge in the fatal shooting of an unarmed man.

The verdict cleared Philip Brailsford, 27, of criminal liability in the 2016 death of Daniel Shaver, of Granbury, Texas. He was also found not guilty of reckless manslaughter, reports CBS Phoenix affiliate KPHO-TV.

The shooting occurred at a hotel in the Phoenix suburb where officers responded to a report of someone pointing a gun out of a window. The video, obtained by KPHO, shows Brailsford pointing a gun at Shaver as Shaver lies on the ground, holds his hands in the air, cries and begs the officer not to shoot.

[WARNING: Graphic content] Body-cam video shows Mesa police shooting



Mesa Police shooting: Daniel Shaver seen crawling, begging in disturbing video

No gun was seen in hand when GANG MEMBER PIG COP Scores Another MURDER TROPHY
for the murdering Anti-American PIG COP COWARD Murder Association! Over 700 plus people
were murdered this year by sick cowardly scumbag pig cops.

BTW:
Shaver, who was intoxicated and could be heard sobbing, begging officers, "Please don't shoot," made a single hand motion, towards his waist, possibly to adjust his pants. Brailsford yelled at Shaver that if Shaver did anything whatsoever that deviated from his instructions he would shoot him and he probably wouldn’t survive. Shaver’s arm then moved again as he wobbled while crawling forward, at which point Brailsford can be heard yelling "Don't-" before immediately opening fire with his AR-15 rifle, striking Shaver 5 times and killing him almost instantly. Shaver was unarmed.

 

[MindWars]

MESA -- Police in Mesa, Arizona released disturbing body camera video on Thursday hours after a former officer was acquitted of a murder charge in the fatal shooting of an unarmed man.

The verdict cleared Philip Brailsford, 27, of criminal liability in the 2016 death of Daniel Shaver, of Granbury, Texas. He was also found not guilty of reckless manslaughter, reports CBS Phoenix affiliate KPHO-TV.

The shooting occurred at a hotel in the Phoenix suburb where officers responded to a report of someone pointing a gun out of a window. The video, obtained by KPHO, shows Brailsford pointing a gun at Shaver as Shaver lies on the ground, holds his hands in the air, cries and begs the officer not to shoot.

[WARNING: Graphic content] Body-cam video shows Mesa police shooting



Mesa Police shooting: Daniel Shaver seen crawling, begging in disturbing video

No gun was seen in hand when GANG MEMBER PIG COP Scores Another MURDER TROPHY
for the murdering Anti-American PIG COP COWARD Murder Association! Over 700 plus people
were murdered this year by sick cowardly scumbag pig cops.

BTW:
Shaver, who was intoxicated and could be heard sobbing, begging officers, "Please don't shoot," made a single hand motion, towards his waist, possibly to adjust his pants. Brailsford yelled at Shaver that if Shaver did anything whatsoever that deviated from his instructions he would shoot him and he probably wouldn’t survive. Shaver’s arm then moved again as he wobbled while crawling forward, at which point Brailsford can be heard yelling "Don't-" before immediately opening fire with his AR-15 rifle, striking Shaver 5 times and killing him almost instantly. Shaver was unarmed.

I saw this earlier today, and when I saw that kid's life just leave him it was eerily creepy without even seeing his face the life that left him was so easy to see.
That cop had no reason to kill him like that and only a pussy would think that kid was reaching for a gun when he clearly had nothing he was pulling up his pants that cop was to stupid and terrified pussy.

 

[Freewill]

Force Science News #178: Important new reaction-time study addresses what’s “reasonable” 
in armed-suspect encounters & more

CONCLUSIONS. “Police officers have a legal right to use force, including lethal force, when it is reasonable to do so,” the researchers state. “An officer may shoot when there is an imminent risk of harm to self or others, or to stop someone who poses a danger to others if allowed to escape….



“There is a perception amongst some community members that officers are too quick to shoot those who only appear to pose a threat…. There are people who seem to believe that the ‘reasonable’ officer should wait until a suspect with a gun begins to use the gun against the officer before the officer utilizes lethal force. [But] would waiting be reasonable in situations where the suspect has his weapon in hand but not aimed?”



That’s the critical question Blair’s study addresses. “As our findings show, most officers can’t fire faster than a suspect with a weapon in hand, even if it is not aimed at the officer,” his team writes. Consequently, “we think that an officer who decided to shoot [in the kinds of situations tested] meets the legal definition of reasonableness,” given the “close range of the encounter, the lack of available cover, the failure of the suspect to comply with multiple warnings, and the data” collected.



The researchers stress, however, that they “do not believe that the findings support” automatically shooting “everyone with a gun” or “everyone with a gun who does not comply.” Armed encounters vary in their details, and “the individual officer must consider the totality of circumstances” in choosing a fitting response, including whether issuing commands is feasible or desirable before firing.



The researchers believe that certain training implications are clear from their findings. First, they support having officers participate in scenarios similar to those they used to convey “a better understanding of the dynamics involved” in armed confrontations and to “help correct inaccurate beliefs about shooting ability.” Also they believe training should “teach officers how to mitigate the dangers posed by armed suspects” through such means as distance and cover.



They hope that their findings “will help officers, and those who judge the actions of officers, to make more informed decisions about the reasonableness of officers’ actions” in deadly encounters.



A full report on the study has been accepted for publication later this year in the peer-reviewed journal Police Quarterly. Publication can be tracked at: http://pqx.sagepub.com.

 

[Zander]

As damning as that video appears, I trust the jury system.

The same jury system that found Kate Steinle's murderer not guilty.

They see every piece of evidence. They hear testimony. Then they decide.

 

[MindWars]

Force Science News #178: Important new reaction-time study addresses what’s “reasonable” 
in armed-suspect encounters & more

CONCLUSIONS. “Police officers have a legal right to use force, including lethal force, when it is reasonable to do so,” the researchers state. “An officer may shoot when there is an imminent risk of harm to self or others, or to stop someone who poses a danger to others if allowed to escape….



“There is a perception amongst some community members that officers are too quick to shoot those who only appear to pose a threat…. There are people who seem to believe that the ‘reasonable’ officer should wait until a suspect with a gun begins to use the gun against the officer before the officer utilizes lethal force. [But] would waiting be reasonable in situations where the suspect has his weapon in hand but not aimed?”



That’s the critical question Blair’s study addresses. “As our findings show, most officers can’t fire faster than a suspect with a weapon in hand, even if it is not aimed at the officer,” his team writes. Consequently, “we think that an officer who decided to shoot [in the kinds of situations tested] meets the legal definition of reasonableness,” given the “close range of the encounter, the lack of available cover, the failure of the suspect to comply with multiple warnings, and the data” collected.



The researchers stress, however, that they “do not believe that the findings support” automatically shooting “everyone with a gun” or “everyone with a gun who does not comply.” Armed encounters vary in their details, and “the individual officer must consider the totality of circumstances” in choosing a fitting response, including whether issuing commands is feasible or desirable before firing.



The researchers believe that certain training implications are clear from their findings. First, they support having officers participate in scenarios similar to those they used to convey “a better understanding of the dynamics involved” in armed confrontations and to “help correct inaccurate beliefs about shooting ability.” Also they believe training should “teach officers how to mitigate the dangers posed by armed suspects” through such means as distance and cover.



They hope that their findings “will help officers, and those who judge the actions of officers, to make more informed decisions about the reasonableness of officers’ actions” in deadly encounters.



A full report on the study has been accepted for publication later this year in the peer-reviewed journal Police Quarterly. Publication can be tracked at: http://pqx.sagepub.com.

Not true they have no right to KILL and indoctrination has taught the public they have that right. They are here to SERVE and PROTECT they work for us.

THey can lie and say they felt threatened c'mon you think these cops don't use that line to get out of killing ppl. it happens constantly.

 

[Freewill]

As damning as that video appears, I trust the jury system.

The same jury system that found Kate Steinle's murderer not guilty.

They see every piece of evidence. They hear testimony. Then they decide.

I trust it until I know the facts. The facts in the Steinle's case does not support the evidence. She was murdered regardless if it were by accident or not. The prosecution made the jury's ability to find him guilty so narrow no other verdict was possible. Sad day for the Steinle family.

 

[Baz Ares]

MESA -- Police in Mesa, Arizona released disturbing body camera video on Thursday hours after a former officer was acquitted of a murder charge in the fatal shooting of an unarmed man.

The verdict cleared Philip Brailsford, 27, of criminal liability in the 2016 death of Daniel Shaver, of Granbury, Texas. He was also found not guilty of reckless manslaughter, reports CBS Phoenix affiliate KPHO-TV.

The shooting occurred at a hotel in the Phoenix suburb where officers responded to a report of someone pointing a gun out of a window. The video, obtained by KPHO, shows Brailsford pointing a gun at Shaver as Shaver lies on the ground, holds his hands in the air, cries and begs the officer not to shoot.

[WARNING: Graphic content] Body-cam video shows Mesa police shooting



Mesa Police shooting: Daniel Shaver seen crawling, begging in disturbing video

No gun was seen in hand when GANG MEMBER PIG COP Scores Another MURDER TROPHY
for the murdering Anti-American PIG COP COWARD Murder Association! Over 700 plus people
were murdered this year by sick cowardly scumbag pig cops.

BTW:
Shaver, who was intoxicated and could be heard sobbing, begging officers, "Please don't shoot," made a single hand motion, towards his waist, possibly to adjust his pants. Brailsford yelled at Shaver that if Shaver did anything whatsoever that deviated from his instructions he would shoot him and he probably wouldn’t survive. Shaver’s arm then moved again as he wobbled while crawling forward, at which point Brailsford can be heard yelling "Don't-" before immediately opening fire with his AR-15 rifle, striking Shaver 5 times and killing him almost instantly. Shaver was unarmed.

I saw this earlier today, and when I saw that kid's life just leave him it was eerily creepy without even seeing his face the life that left him was so easy to see.
That cop had no reason to kill him like that and only a pussy would think that kid was reaching for a gun when he clearly had nothing he was pulling up his pants that cop was to stupid and terrified pussy.

The PIG could see the hand come back clearly empty when he murdered the person, so to belong to the Blue Murder Trophy Killing Crew. The Murdering PIG asshole scumbag gets hours and hours of training. So to
deal with this, where he's got clearly the Yuge Kill Shoot drop on him. The dead had no history of wanting to die. The Pig is a Yuge COWARD, a 100% American Terrorist of the general public.

 

[Freewill]

Force Science News #178: Important new reaction-time study addresses what’s “reasonable” 
in armed-suspect encounters & more

CONCLUSIONS. “Police officers have a legal right to use force, including lethal force, when it is reasonable to do so,” the researchers state. “An officer may shoot when there is an imminent risk of harm to self or others, or to stop someone who poses a danger to others if allowed to escape….



“There is a perception amongst some community members that officers are too quick to shoot those who only appear to pose a threat…. There are people who seem to believe that the ‘reasonable’ officer should wait until a suspect with a gun begins to use the gun against the officer before the officer utilizes lethal force. [But] would waiting be reasonable in situations where the suspect has his weapon in hand but not aimed?”



That’s the critical question Blair’s study addresses. “As our findings show, most officers can’t fire faster than a suspect with a weapon in hand, even if it is not aimed at the officer,” his team writes. Consequently, “we think that an officer who decided to shoot [in the kinds of situations tested] meets the legal definition of reasonableness,” given the “close range of the encounter, the lack of available cover, the failure of the suspect to comply with multiple warnings, and the data” collected.



The researchers stress, however, that they “do not believe that the findings support” automatically shooting “everyone with a gun” or “everyone with a gun who does not comply.” Armed encounters vary in their details, and “the individual officer must consider the totality of circumstances” in choosing a fitting response, including whether issuing commands is feasible or desirable before firing.



The researchers believe that certain training implications are clear from their findings. First, they support having officers participate in scenarios similar to those they used to convey “a better understanding of the dynamics involved” in armed confrontations and to “help correct inaccurate beliefs about shooting ability.” Also they believe training should “teach officers how to mitigate the dangers posed by armed suspects” through such means as distance and cover.



They hope that their findings “will help officers, and those who judge the actions of officers, to make more informed decisions about the reasonableness of officers’ actions” in deadly encounters.



A full report on the study has been accepted for publication later this year in the peer-reviewed journal Police Quarterly. Publication can be tracked at: http://pqx.sagepub.com.

Not true they have no right to KILL and indoctrination has taught the public they have that right. They are here to SERVE and PROTECT they work for us.

THey can lie and say they felt threatened c'mon you think these cops don't use that line to get out of killing ppl. it happens constantly.

And you know that the officer lied? Have you ever seen demonstration of reaction times and how long a person has to react to a threat? If it were me I would be sure not to fall on the side of waiting too long and getting shot. Obey the law, obey the cops, no matter how much you hate them, and you will be OK. Run away, act suspicious and move in ways that seem a threat and things might not turn out well for you.

 

[MindWars]

Force Science News #178: Important new reaction-time study addresses what’s “reasonable” 
in armed-suspect encounters & more

CONCLUSIONS. “Police officers have a legal right to use force, including lethal force, when it is reasonable to do so,” the researchers state. “An officer may shoot when there is an imminent risk of harm to self or others, or to stop someone who poses a danger to others if allowed to escape….



“There is a perception amongst some community members that officers are too quick to shoot those who only appear to pose a threat…. There are people who seem to believe that the ‘reasonable’ officer should wait until a suspect with a gun begins to use the gun against the officer before the officer utilizes lethal force. [But] would waiting be reasonable in situations where the suspect has his weapon in hand but not aimed?”



That’s the critical question Blair’s study addresses. “As our findings show, most officers can’t fire faster than a suspect with a weapon in hand, even if it is not aimed at the officer,” his team writes. Consequently, “we think that an officer who decided to shoot [in the kinds of situations tested] meets the legal definition of reasonableness,” given the “close range of the encounter, the lack of available cover, the failure of the suspect to comply with multiple warnings, and the data” collected.



The researchers stress, however, that they “do not believe that the findings support” automatically shooting “everyone with a gun” or “everyone with a gun who does not comply.” Armed encounters vary in their details, and “the individual officer must consider the totality of circumstances” in choosing a fitting response, including whether issuing commands is feasible or desirable before firing.



The researchers believe that certain training implications are clear from their findings. First, they support having officers participate in scenarios similar to those they used to convey “a better understanding of the dynamics involved” in armed confrontations and to “help correct inaccurate beliefs about shooting ability.” Also they believe training should “teach officers how to mitigate the dangers posed by armed suspects” through such means as distance and cover.



They hope that their findings “will help officers, and those who judge the actions of officers, to make more informed decisions about the reasonableness of officers’ actions” in deadly encounters.



A full report on the study has been accepted for publication later this year in the peer-reviewed journal Police Quarterly. Publication can be tracked at: http://pqx.sagepub.com.

Not true they have no right to KILL and indoctrination has taught the public they have that right. They are here to SERVE and PROTECT they work for us.

THey can lie and say they felt threatened c'mon you think these cops don't use that line to get out of killing ppl. it happens constantly.

And you know that the officer lied? Have you ever seen demonstration of reaction times and how long a person has to react to a threat? If it were me I would be sure not to fall on the side of waiting too long and getting shot. Obey the law, obey the cops, no matter how much you hate them, and you will be OK. Run away, act suspicious and move in ways that seem a threat and things might not turn out well for you.

I said these Officers can LIE and even when you see what you see with your own two lies just because a law is a law DOESN'T make it right nor legal.

Our police have been militarized , they indoctrinated you zombies into accepting this type of behavior ...

Police never use to just shoot the fk out of people where the hell have you bee planet fantasy....

Or were you born ten years ago.

With over an estimated 80,000 SWAT raids per year, an increase in fatal (and often-times unnecessary) police shootings, and a routine dependence on militarized weapons and vehicles, local police departments are beginning to act like and resemble a standing army.

The American police force, however, is not a branch of the military, nor is it a private security force for the reigning political faction. It is an aggregation of the countless local units that exist for a sole purpose: to serve and protect the citizens of each and every American community. In recent years, however, there has been an increasing militarization of the police. It has not occurred suddenly, in a single precinct; it cannot be traced back to a single leader or event—rather, the pattern is so subtle that most American citizens are hardly even aware of it. Little by little, police authority has expanded, one weapon after another has been added to the police arsenal, and one exception after another has been made to the standards that have historically restrained police authority. When analyzed as a whole, this trend toward militarization is undeniable, and it is one that could have serious implications for American liberty if left unchecked.

The Rutherford Institute

Our Recent Work in Police State

Rutherford Institute Sues Police Over 'Broken Taillight' Traffic Stop

 

[Rambunctious]

He reached behind him on the officers blind side and brought his hand forward...why did he do that? Stupid.

 

[MindWars]

MESA -- Police in Mesa, Arizona released disturbing body camera video on Thursday hours after a former officer was acquitted of a murder charge in the fatal shooting of an unarmed man.

The verdict cleared Philip Brailsford, 27, of criminal liability in the 2016 death of Daniel Shaver, of Granbury, Texas. He was also found not guilty of reckless manslaughter, reports CBS Phoenix affiliate KPHO-TV.

The shooting occurred at a hotel in the Phoenix suburb where officers responded to a report of someone pointing a gun out of a window. The video, obtained by KPHO, shows Brailsford pointing a gun at Shaver as Shaver lies on the ground, holds his hands in the air, cries and begs the officer not to shoot.

[WARNING: Graphic content] Body-cam video shows Mesa police shooting



Mesa Police shooting: Daniel Shaver seen crawling, begging in disturbing video

No gun was seen in hand when GANG MEMBER PIG COP Scores Another MURDER TROPHY
for the murdering Anti-American PIG COP COWARD Murder Association! Over 700 plus people
were murdered this year by sick cowardly scumbag pig cops.

BTW:
Shaver, who was intoxicated and could be heard sobbing, begging officers, "Please don't shoot," made a single hand motion, towards his waist, possibly to adjust his pants. Brailsford yelled at Shaver that if Shaver did anything whatsoever that deviated from his instructions he would shoot him and he probably wouldn’t survive. Shaver’s arm then moved again as he wobbled while crawling forward, at which point Brailsford can be heard yelling "Don't-" before immediately opening fire with his AR-15 rifle, striking Shaver 5 times and killing him almost instantly. Shaver was unarmed.

I saw this earlier today, and when I saw that kid's life just leave him it was eerily creepy without even seeing his face the life that left him was so easy to see.
That cop had no reason to kill him like that and only a pussy would think that kid was reaching for a gun when he clearly had nothing he was pulling up his pants that cop was to stupid and terrified pussy.

The PIG could see the hand come back clearly empty when he murdered the person, so to belong to the Blue Murder Trophy Killing Crew. The Murdering PIG asshole scumbag gets hours and hours of training. So to
deal with this, where he's got clearly the Yuge Kill Shoot drop on him. The dead had no history of wanting to die. The Pig is a Yuge COWARD, a 100% American Terrorist of the general public.

Yeha and just like I told free COPS never use to just shoot people.. These assholes have become militarized.
Not all cops are assholes but we have these types who are pussies and are being taught to act like they are in the military SHOOT FIRST ask later.

 

[MindWars]

He reached behind him on the officers blind side and brought his hand forward...why did he do that? Stupid.

I thought it was stupid too, but these cops shoot first and shoot as if they are terrified pussies.

I think the kids pants were falling off and that's why he reached behind him to pull up his pants.

 

[BULLDOG]

As damning as that video appears, I trust the jury system.

The same jury system that found Kate Steinle's murderer not guilty.

They see every piece of evidence. They hear testimony. Then they decide.

I trust it until I know the facts. The facts in the Steinle's case does not support the evidence. She was murdered regardless if it were by accident or not. The prosecution made the jury's ability to find him guilty so narrow no other verdict was possible. Sad day for the Steinle family.

If it was an accident, it wasn't murder.

 

[Freewill]

Not that it will do any good.

 

[BULLDOG]

He reached behind him on the officers blind side and brought his hand forward...why did he do that? Stupid.

To pull his pants up? He didn't have a gun.

 

[SavannahMann]

Force Science News #178: Important new reaction-time study addresses what’s “reasonable” 
in armed-suspect encounters & more

CONCLUSIONS. “Police officers have a legal right to use force, including lethal force, when it is reasonable to do so,” the researchers state. “An officer may shoot when there is an imminent risk of harm to self or others, or to stop someone who poses a danger to others if allowed to escape….



“There is a perception amongst some community members that officers are too quick to shoot those who only appear to pose a threat…. There are people who seem to believe that the ‘reasonable’ officer should wait until a suspect with a gun begins to use the gun against the officer before the officer utilizes lethal force. [But] would waiting be reasonable in situations where the suspect has his weapon in hand but not aimed?”



That’s the critical question Blair’s study addresses. “As our findings show, most officers can’t fire faster than a suspect with a weapon in hand, even if it is not aimed at the officer,” his team writes. Consequently, “we think that an officer who decided to shoot [in the kinds of situations tested] meets the legal definition of reasonableness,” given the “close range of the encounter, the lack of available cover, the failure of the suspect to comply with multiple warnings, and the data” collected.



The researchers stress, however, that they “do not believe that the findings support” automatically shooting “everyone with a gun” or “everyone with a gun who does not comply.” Armed encounters vary in their details, and “the individual officer must consider the totality of circumstances” in choosing a fitting response, including whether issuing commands is feasible or desirable before firing.



The researchers believe that certain training implications are clear from their findings. First, they support having officers participate in scenarios similar to those they used to convey “a better understanding of the dynamics involved” in armed confrontations and to “help correct inaccurate beliefs about shooting ability.” Also they believe training should “teach officers how to mitigate the dangers posed by armed suspects” through such means as distance and cover.



They hope that their findings “will help officers, and those who judge the actions of officers, to make more informed decisions about the reasonableness of officers’ actions” in deadly encounters.



A full report on the study has been accepted for publication later this year in the peer-reviewed journal Police Quarterly. Publication can be tracked at: http://pqx.sagepub.com.

Absolutely unreasonable. Why? An armed citizen shooting someone like that would be murder.

 

[Anathema]

The PIG could see the hand come back clearly empty when he murdered the person, so to belong to the Blue Murder Trophy Killing Crew. The Murdering PIG asshole scumbag gets hours and hours of training. So to deal with this, where he's got clearly the Yuge Kill Shoot drop on him. The dead had no history of wanting to die. The Pig is a Yuge COWARD, a 100% American Terrorist of the general public.

The officer is a HERO, who greatly improved the American gene pool and average IQ by removing thst waste of flesh and oxygen from it.

 

[Rambunctious]

I thought it was stupid too, but these cops shoot first and shoot as if they are terrified pussies.

I think the kids pants were falling off and that's why he reached behind him to pull up his pants.

That's so sad... I think you are right.

 

[BULLDOG]

Not that it will do any good.

video of police reacting to a threat - Bing video

The video might have some bearing on this case if the guy was scared shitless, and his pants were falling off. The cop murdered the guy for no good reason. You don't have to admit it, but don't waste your time trying to justify the murder.

 

[airplanemechanic]

If someone tells you "Do not put your hands down for any reason or I will shoot you" and you put your hand down toward your waist, and you get shot, my sympathy button fails to be pushed. If your pants are falling down you tell the officer that. You don't reach for your waist when you're staring down the barrel of an AR-15.

I guess this is another reason to wear pants that fit right.