A cop is on trial for murder, but his Arizona police union buddies have no problem using Facebook to slander the unarmed, dead-man that one of the Mesa Police shot in the back and killed, and whom prosecutors say, “didn’t do anything wrong.”
Prosecutors asked a judge seal the body cam video of Shaver being killed this week.
And they have repeatedly denied Daniel Shaver’s widow the right, to even see for herself the damning footage of her husband’s last moments, which will in all likelihood result in the killer cop’s criminal conviction, based on the Prosecutor’s plea deal offer. The DA’s crazy theory, heard in the video going viral that you can see below, is that by the widow seeing the evidence, it would then let her speak truthfully to the press about her husband’s death, and that is somehow wrong.
Doubtless, Mesa Police officers have seen the footage, they investigated the incident.
Maricopa County Prosecutor Bill Montgomery had a conversation in mid-March describing victim Daniel Shaver thusly to his widow (time 5:42 see below):
“What happened that day was the responsibility of the police officer. Your husband didn’t do anything wrong. He didn’t. He was trying to comply.”
“Mr. Shaver committed a felony by recklessly displaying a dangerous instrument (ARS 13-2904A6).”
Meanwhile, Maricopa County Prosecutor Bill Montgomery is trying to give disgraced Mesa Cop Mitchell Brailford a quick ‘get out of jail free card’-style plea deal from second-degree murder to negligent homicide charges, rather than let the officer stand trial.
Widow Laney Sweet recently hired prominent plaintiff’s attorneys from California, the Geragos & Garagos law firm, who just filed legal action to give her a seat at the table under the Arizona Constitution‘s “Victim’s Bill of Rights” and state statute.
“It’s a disgusting and depraved post by Mesa’s police union,” said Geragos lawyer Ben Meisalas, “and indicates that the Federal Department of Justice should be brought in to investigate both this incident and the department.”
The Arizona police union has also sifted through the mountain of evidence, doubtless with a team of lawyers, and is convinced that the important thing isn’t that their officer shot a man in the back who begged for his life and failed, but rather that Daniel Shaver was intoxicated – lawfully – in his own hotel room at night, when the incident began and he followed officers dictates to the letter, saying:
After an autopsy, it was discovered that Mr. Shaver’s blood alcohol content was a .29, almost four times the legal limit of intoxication of a person driving.
Except that he wasn’t driving.
The Arizona police union continued to say:
We believe if not for the actions of Mr. Shaver, this incident could have been avoided. Unfortunately, there were consequences to Mr. Shaver’s actions, and he paid the price.
Thta’s how the Mesa Police Association is defending Officer Brailford, who had inscribed “You’re Fucked” on his AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, which he selected for its useful “long range” in the crowded motel hallway.
“The Mesa Police Department and its Police Association should be disbanded and re-constituted,” said the attorney Meisalas noting the disbanding of West Valley Utah’s corrupt narcotics unit as an example, or Camden, New Jersey as another, “If they’re going to support murder, then this is going to happen over and over again. If this is their public stance, imagine what they’re saying in private.”
“They must be stopped.”
Daniel Shaver was a pest control specialist with an air rifle for work.
Mesa Officer Mitchell Brailsford’s Sergeant ordered Shaver to crawl towards them on his hands and knees.
When Shaver got close, Brailsford lost situational awareness.
The Arizona cop later admitted to police investigators that he thought the unarmed citizen was trying to get into “better firing position” while crawling compliantly towards the officers.
Shaver died on his hands and knees, while begging for his life, when the Mesa cop shot him five times with an AR-15 rifle from a distance of just under 13 feet.
You can read the legal objection which the widow filed below, opposing the Prosecutor’s motion to seal the video, which Sweet argues “was not, and is not, approved by the Victims or filed for their benefit.”