Toronto Escorts

Officer who killed unarmed, sobbing man to get $31,000 a year pension

Charlemagne

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2017
15,451
2,484
113
Officer who killed unarmed, sobbing man to get $31,000 a year pension

Posted: Wed 5:56 PM, Jul 17, 2019 |

Updated: Wed 6:04 PM, Jul 17, 2019

A police officer who was acquitted of murder after he killed an unarmed man in an Arizona hotel will get thousands of dollars a month for the rest of his life, according to information newly obtained by the media.

According to ABC 15, 28-year-old Philip Mitchell Brailsford will get a special $31,000-a-year pension, tax-free, after killing Daniel Shaver in the hallway of a La Quinta Inn & Suites in Mesa, Arizona.

Shaver, a 26-year-old father from Texas, was in Mesa for business when he was killed on January 18, 2016.

Police were called on Shaver after someone reported that he brandished a rifle at the window of his hotel room.

During the police encounter, Shaver and a woman came out of the room and were ordered onto the ground. Officers threatened to shoot them if they did not comply with the officers' subsequent commands exactly. After the woman is taken into custody, video shows Shaver sobbing and attempting to comply with the officers' list of specific orders. He appears to be confused or unnerved by the commands given by officers to raise his hands in the air and crawl toward officers. Seconds later, as Shaver was crawling forward, he appears to reach toward his waistband and Brailsford opens fire, killing Shaver. His hand was empty. No gun was found on Shaver's body.

Shaver's rifle, which was in his hotel room, was determined to be a pellet gun he used as a pest control worker. It was also determined that he was intoxicated during the encounter.

Brailsford was charged with second-degree murder and reckless manslaughter in the case but was found not guilty by a jury in December of 2017. The trial lasted about six weeks.

Brailsford was fired in 2016 after the incident for a policy violation. The AR-15 he used in the shooting had the words "You're F****d" etched into it. Brailsford immediately appealed. In 2018, an agreement was reached with the city and he was temporarily rehired, but only on paper. Brailsford argued that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder after the shooting and was allowed to medically retire. You can read more about this here.

ABC 15's report says Brailford will get $2,569.21 a month. He will also receive a "neutral reference" for any future employment. You can read the full ABC 15 report here.

Shaver's widow, Laney Sweet, has filed a wrongful death civil suit in the case and says her daughters are traumatized by the event.. The family also filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit in the case.

A Facebook group seeking Justice for Daniel Shaveris still very active.

https://www.knoe.com/content/news/Officer-who-killed-unarmed-sobbing-man-to-get-31000-a-year-pension-512859021.html
 

HEYHEY

Well-known member
Nov 25, 2005
2,511
575
113
The cop in that situation fucked up, as did the guy who got shot.
 

The Oracle

Pronouns: Who/Cares
Mar 8, 2004
23,225
46,727
113
On the slopes of Mount Parnassus, Greece
Listen there's a lot of guns in the hands of bad guys down south of here.

And the cops are on notice. So the key is just to comply with their commands.

It's the best way to ensure you come out alive.
 

JohnnyWishbone

Well-known member
May 7, 2019
650
655
93
$31k a year pension for about 5 or 6 years work I presume. Not bad. Not sure why he gets it tax free though.
 

hedo rick

Active member
Jun 11, 2016
336
70
28
I’ve watched the video of this.
This was murder, plain and simple.
And I’m not usually an anti-police guy.
 

Keebler Elf

The Original Elf
Aug 31, 2001
14,575
207
63
The Keebler Factory
Pension is already earned so they can't take it away from him. It's the equivalent of money already in his bank account. Same reason OJ Simpson gets his NFL pension (don't hear black people calling for that to be given up now do you?). Now, he could be sued in civil court by the family...
 

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
6,821
2,283
113
I’ve watched the video of this.
This was murder, plain and simple.
And I’m not usually an anti-police guy.
This video?:


It seems to show the shooting victim repeatedly disobeying the officer, after having been warned that he may be shot if he continued to do so. Instructing a suspect not to reach for his waist, which might allow him to draw a weapon, makes perfect sense as a police instruction. The police were responding to a complaint that the shooting victim had been brandishing a weapon.

It turned out that he wasn't carrying a weapon at the time of arrest, but he clearly reached for his waist after having been forcefully told not to more than once by the officer.

This was a mistake, and a deadly one at that, but it is light years away from being a murder. The officer had absolutely no reason to fire on this man apart from an sincere fear that he was about to draw a weapon. Given the victim's non compliance, I don't think you could call that fear unreasonable. As the video discusses, the policing experts at the trial all testified that he had acted exactly according to his training.

My only question is whether, at short range and with time to aim, it is reasonable to start expecting officers to aim for non-critical areas (shoulder, leg, etc.), instead of the torso (which is their training).
 

wilbur

Active member
Jan 19, 2004
2,079
0
36
This video?:


It seems to show the shooting victim repeatedly disobeying the officer, after having been warned that he may be shot if he continued to do so. Instructing a suspect not to reach for his waist, which might allow him to draw a weapon, makes perfect sense as a police instruction. The police were responding to a complaint that the shooting victim had been brandishing a weapon.

It turned out that he wasn't carrying a weapon at the time of arrest, but he clearly reached for his waist after having been forcefully told not to more than once by the officer.

This was a mistake, and a deadly one at that, but it is light years away from being a murder. The officer had absolutely no reason to fire on this man apart from an sincere fear that he was about to draw a weapon. Given the victim's non compliance, I don't think you could call that fear unreasonable. As the video discusses, the policing experts at the trial all testified that he had acted exactly according to his training.

My only question is whether, at short range and with time to aim, it is reasonable to start expecting officers to aim for non-critical areas (shoulder, leg, etc.), instead of the torso (which is their training).

Police are trained to shoot at the centre of mass. Shooting at non-critical areas is movie stuff.

It takes a fraction of a second to decide and to pull the trigger if the rifle is already aimed. It would take at least 3 seconds for the guy lying on the ground to pull a handgun from his waist, aim it and fire. The cop should not have pulled the trigger on suspicion, and should have waited until he actually saw a gun.

The cop was gun happy and a total idiot. The PTSD thing is just something his lawyer told him to say so he could get some money.

This is a classic case of shoot first and ask questions later.

BTW, the other cop retired in disgust.
 

hedo rick

Active member
Jun 11, 2016
336
70
28
This video?:


It seems to show the shooting victim repeatedly disobeying the officer, after having been warned that he may be shot if he continued to do so. Instructing a suspect not to reach for his waist, which might allow him to draw a weapon, makes perfect sense as a police instruction. The police were responding to a complaint that the shooting victim had been brandishing a weapon.

It turned out that he wasn't carrying a weapon at the time of arrest, but he clearly reached for his waist after having been forcefully told not to more than once by the officer.

This was a mistake, and a deadly one at that, but it is light years away from being a murder. The officer had absolutely no reason to fire on this man apart from an sincere fear that he was about to draw a weapon. Given the victim's non compliance, I don't think you could call that fear unreasonable. As the video discusses, the policing experts at the trial all testified that he had acted exactly according to his training.

My only question is whether, at short range and with time to aim, it is reasonable to start expecting officers to aim for non-critical areas (shoulder, leg, etc.), instead of the torso (which is their training).
Watch the full video:
https://youtu.be/Q8oVE49zYb8

Now, put yourself in Daniel Shaver’s shoes. You’re drinking in your hotel room, minding your own business. And then suddenly you’ve got guns pointed at you, with officers shouting orders. They outright threaten to kill you. The instructions they give are not clear.

It becomes a sadistic game of Simon says where if you screw up, you die.

Listen to Daniel pleading for his life.

It did not have to end this way.

I went away from watching this video thinking I’d just witnessed an execution. It’s sickening.
 

rhuarc29

Well-known member
Apr 15, 2009
9,601
1,199
113
I watched the video multiple times. The cop was a moron, and his ridiculous instructions and apparent lack of understanding of how to handle these situations resulted in the man's death. He should have been found guilty of manslaughter. He should be serving quite a few years in jail. Instead, he gets a lifetime vacation and a "neutral" reference should he wish to find another job on the side to pad the $31K of free money from the taxpayers each year.
 
Toronto Escorts