Killer Cop Gets Gigantic Pension for PTSD

[Ethereal]

Now that I think about it, it really wasn't all that surprising. Since you have a penchant for blaming the cops first, no matter what the situation. Training schmaining. Did your training and experience also teach you to hate America? Well then, you're training sucked. You're no different than any other radicalized militant.

Thanks for proving, once again, just how stupid and obnoxious you are, old man.

[Ethereal]

Its for my benefit but it never works LOL...ive been collecting my pension 25yrs and its alot more than 2500...ALOT MORE

Total waste of money.

[Tahuyaman]

He was charged, tried and acquitted by a jury which heard all the evidence. That's the way it goes.

[gamewell45]

I cant speak for all depts, I do know that the northeast most contracts state when a pension can be stripped and when it cannot. Getting convicted of a crime is a given you lose it. Your pension can contractually be yanked once you are retired if you are imprisoned for any reason

I dont see how a person deemed innocent by a jury of his peers can thusly be punished by losing his job and pension.

Granted in this case the jury got it wrong, but they still deemed him innocent of the charge

I have to agree; this is the mechanism we use in this country to resolve issues and whatever the courts say, we all agree to abide by their ruling.

[Cletus]

I disagree. I have tried probably 60 or so lawsuits. I think the jury has gotten it right far more often than not. I believe in the jury system.

"...far more often than not." Is that really good enough, especially in cases involving someone's freedom or even life?

I don't think it is.

[Tahuyaman]

I have to agree; this is the mechanism we use in this country to resolve issues and whatever the courts say, we all agree to abide by their ruling.

People should be reluctant to claim a jury got something wrong unless you were privy to all the evidence presented at trial.

[Tahuyaman]

"...far more often than not." Is that really good enough, especially in cases involving someone's freedom or even life?

I don't think it is.

There is no such thing as perfection.

[Ethereal]

The cop believed the syspect was reaching for a firearm.

How do you know what the cop believed? He etched "your f*cked" into his rifle. That demonstrates malice aforethought. He wanted to kill someone and looked for any excuse to satisfy his blood lust. And not only did he get away with his crime, he got rewarded for it.

[Dr. Who]

The trial of Philip Brailsford commenced on October 23rd, 2017, with the prosecution and defense interviewing 34 witnesses - including Monique Portillo, the woman that had been with Daniel Shaver just prior to the shooting.

The prosecution faced an uphill battle; not only because of the information being *omitted from the jury, but because Arizona state has some unique laws regarding gun rights. Basically, the state would have to disprove that Brailsford was acting in self-defense; having to prove that the killing was intentional. Hence, the charge of second-degree murder.

Susie Charbel, the Deputy County Attorney of Maricopa County, argued in court:

"The state will show the defendant wasn't acting like a reasonable officer, he was acting like a killer.

"[Brailsford] doesn't get a pass because he was wearing a police uniform that night."

*In the trial itself, the jury would not be able to see all of the footage showing the shooting of Daniel Shaver. Much like Brailsford's engraved rifle dust cover - which again, read "YOU'RE $#@!ED," of which knowledge was withheld from the trial - the jury would only be given an abridged look at the case.

https://unresolved.me/daniel-shaver

Brailsford swore he shot in self-defense and per SCOTUS a 'defense of life' standard applies. Brailsford was acquitted and directly afterward the entire video was released to the public. Thus the jury was not actually allowed to see all of the evidence, since I assume it was deemed prejudicial to Brailsford. Of course Shaver's rights and those of his widow and child were not considered.

[Safety]

People should be reluctant to claim a jury got something wrong unless you were privy to all the evidence presented at trial.

Like OJ?