The Murder of Daniel Shaver

 

I am not sure how I stumbled across this story but it is once again another one that I have absolutely no idea how I ever missed. Maybe over the years we have all just been numbed by stories of police shootings that we do not even notice them; maybe, despite the fact that it was said to make national attention, it really did not as much as we would like to think.

Police shootings are not a new thing, nor were they in 2016 when this one occurred. But, let's be fair in stating that most of the high profile cases we hear about are cases that involve a white officer and a black victim. Later I will get into studies that have been done and maybe show you why this is true. However, before we jump into this case I have a few things I want to delve into first.

If you are a regular reader of this blog you may, or may not, have noticed that very few of the blogs mention the race of anyone involved. I have only done so when it was relevant to the story and off the top of my head I feel I can safely say that out of the more than 750 blogs that I have done race has been mentioned less than twenty times and I chose a much larger number than I believe it to be. I, myself am a middle-aged white woman. I was raised in the inner city and graduated from a high school in which I was in minority race. I currently live with my white son, his white girlfriend and her two white children and we have a Black Lives Matter sign in our yard. To be fair the girlfriend and I really wanted a sign that supported other organizations and ways of life. I do not point this out to start any kind of political fight or anything like that. But, I do want to say that after researching this case I am even more supportive of the Black Lives Matter movement.

This particular police shooting case involves a white officer AND a white victim. The police body cam in this case was not released to the public until nearly two years after the shooting but members of BLM were among the first to comment and express how unjust it was. An article pointed out that in contrasts to BLM there is an All Lives Matter movement. Many argue that while they are not about “All” lives, they are simply an organization in name only for no other reason than to be in opposition of BLM. That being said while yes, BLM concentrate on a large majority of police shootings that involve unarmed black men, they do focus on all police shootings. Their goal is not solely to bring attention to the fact that black men are more at risk of being abused, shot or killed by the police, it is to show the abuse of power that is used by some officers, regardless of their color or the color of their victim. You may disagree with me but that is more the definition of making all lives matter than just saying the words. If the incidents of police shootings in general are lowered it helps people of all races. But, anyways, let me get off my soap box here and tell you about this case and let you decide what you think.

On January 18, 2016 a call was made to the Mesa Arizona police from a LaQuinta Inn and Suites. Most reports say that some guests went to the front desk to report that they had seen the scope of a rifle outside a 5^th floor window. A few stated that the report was simply that someone saw the gun through the window (meaning the window was never opened), and even on simply claimed that there was a report that a silhouette of a rifle was seen. Just when I thought that I could conclusively say one way or another if the alleged rifle was outside the window I would find something else. In the realm of things whether the alleged rifle was inside the window or out really does not matter I suppose. The guest reporting this told the desk clerk which window it was and she knew that it was room 502, occupied by a man named Daniel Shaver. I dug into this case much deeper than I do many others because I kept coming across more and more things and information. I finally came across something that stated that the desk clerk went up to Room 502, but I was not completely certain if this was before or after she called the police. She would later say that she had gone to the room where she saw Daniel Shaver and two other people in the room, later identified as Luis Nunez and Monique Portillo. The clerk did say that Nunez was holding what she believed to be a rifle but she later seemed unconcerned acting as if she thought maybe one of the men was selling the rifle. She said she asked Shaver if everything was okay, he responded with yes and the rifle was laid down.

I could not determine exactly what was told to the police when they were called about the situation. It was said that the police did not speak to anyone at the hotel and headed straight to the room. In the meantime Luis Nunez had left the room. In fact, he would later say that he had left a few times throughout the night.

Daniel Shaver lived in Texas and worked as a pest exterminator. He was married, with two daughters and was in Mesa on what was described as a business trip. Luis Nunez and Montique Portillo lived in New Mexico and worked for Dollar General. They too were in Mesa for business, whether these were conventions or meetings or what was never clear. On the night of January 18^th they had met Shaver in the elevator of the hotel. They all had rooms on the fifth floor and had struck up a conversation. Shaver invited the two to his room for “drinks.” Nunez would later say that it became clear to him that Shaver was drunk pretty quickly. In the meantime Nunez's girlfriend kept calling him and he had left the room at least one and returned. At some point Shaver had shown Nunez two pellet guns that he had related to his work. Pictures of these guns reveal that they did look similar to rifles, scopes and all. According to Nunez, Shaver told him that these were used in the business to reach birds and such in high places like grocery stores and the like. It was said that Shaver took them into the hotel room rather than leaving them in his car so that they would not get stolen. Nunez would later say that Shaver asked him if he wanted to test it and he had expressed it was not a good idea but it is still unclear whether the window had been opened or not. Apparently after the hotel clerk left the room Nunez had also. He says he did not feel uncomfortable leaving Monique with Shaver and he had expressed to her that he was leaving and she was fine with staying. He said he went to his room but his key card didn't work so at first he planned to simply go to the desk and headed to the lobby. As he did so he saw several police officers enter and head towards the elevator. He claimed that he suspected they were going up to Shaver's room because of the pellet gun issue but at the same time his girlfriend called again and they began to argue on the phone. Instead he had gone outside, gotten in his car and left the hotel for a while.

Meanwhile six officers made their way upstairs. I could give you the names of all six officer but only two are important. One was Sergeant Charles Langley. He was the officer in charge and the one who would give all of the orders both to the other officers and the civilians. The second important officer was Philip Brailsford. He was a two year veteran of the force and the son of a fellow long, time officer. It was indicated that it was possible that the officers may have hollered for the occupants of Room 502 to come out and they did not hear them, but that is not clear. One of the officers ended up calling the room and Shaver answered. Monique would later say that Shaver seemed confused and when he hung up he told her that the Mesa Police were outside the door and wanted them to step outside.

There was an indication that there was some body cam footage available when the two exited the hotel room but I was never able to see that. I was able to view body cam footage that was released nearly two years later that began with Monique and Daniel Shaver both laying in the hallway floor of the hotel with the officers several feet away at the other end of the hallway with their guns drawn. Picture if you will that both Monique and Shaver were face down on the ground with their arms above their heads. Shaver was further down the hallway than Monique and neither were necessarily in a position to see the other clearly.

Langley asked the two if they were drunk and they both stated that they were not. Langley indicated that this meant they should have no trouble following directions. Early on Langley said “If you make a mistake, another mistake, there is a very severe possibility you're both going to get shot.” This was one of many, many threats Langley would state over the next four or so minutes. Keep in mind that the officers have not told them why they were there or what was going on at this point, or at any point really. No officer had gotten close enough to either of them to pat them down for weapons but it should have been reasonable on their part to at least know the rifle that had allegedly been seen was not on them either.

Langley told both Monique and Shaver to cross their feet at the ankle. I could be mistaken, and I did not write it down,but I believe he specifically told them to put their left foot over their right. However, I do know he was specific. He then told Monique to keep her hands above her head and get in a kneeling position. She was also told to leave her purse and jacket where it was in the hallway and to crawl, with her hands up, towards the officers. The entire time all of the officers kept their guns on both she and Shaver. Once Monique got close enough Langley told other officers to place cuffs on her and move her out of the way. He told them to let him know when they were “clear.” On the body cam footage you hear one of the officer say “clear” and yet Langley tells them that is not true and makes them move her more and made sure they were really “clear.”

Then Langley moved on to Daniel Shaver. Keep in mind that Monique is now handcuffed and although still in the same area there are still six officers and Shaver is still down at the other end of the hallway alone. I point this out because in my opinion what happened next did not need to be done the way that it was. If even two officers stayed with Monique that still would leave four to solely deal with him. At this point I feel that if the officers still wanted to handle this in a similar manner as they had been that two officers could have continued to stand at that end of the hallway with their weapons drawn and two could have headed to Shaver and put him in custody and it would have all been over. But, that is not what was done. Instead, they began the same process they used with Monique now with Shaver. He was told to get in the kneeling position. As he did so his legs came uncrossed and Langley began to yell. At this point he had startled the already clearly shaken Shaver who crossed his legs once more and in the process had placed his hands behind his back as someone would do when they are cuffed. Again, Langley began screaming and each time that he did he would tell Shaver that basically no one there had any qualms at shooting him. At this point Shaver is not just shaking, he is sobbing and begging the officers not to shoot him. Langley then tells him to “crawl” toward them just as he had told Monique. At some point Langley told Shaver that his hands were to remain up and if he fell then he would just have to fall on his face. While Monique had done so solely on her knees with her hands up, Shaver began to crawl like most of us would think, on all fours. Despite this not being the way that they apparently wanted him to this was the first time that Langley did not scream at him and allowed him to move forward. As Shaver got to the area where Monique had previously been and her purse still lay, he was a bit unsteady. Shaver started to reach back to the waist of his pants and shots were fired.

Philip Brailsford opened fire with his AR-15. Daniel Shaver was hit five times and died almost instantly. It was later said that Brailsford was the only one of the six officers to shoot his gun. Brailsford would later say that he believed Shaver was reaching for a weapon, hence opened fire. It was later determined and believed that Shaver had reached toward his waist in instinct to pull up his shorts that had begun to fall.

Monique, who had witnessed all of this, began to cry and scream and she would later say (most of the publicly released footage had ended)that she was told by the officers to be quiet and their language was completely laced in profanity. She was then taken to the elevator and down to the lobby where she was handcuffed to a bench. Allegedly there was a body cam tape during this point in which she can be heard hyperventilating and having trouble breathing due to the emotions of all that had happened and she had seen.

After being handcuffed to the bench the officer left her as more officers were arriving on the scene. A woman officer arrived and began questioning Monique about her evening. It seems that it may have been at this point that Monique may have understood what had started these events but she still had not been told why she had been cuffed and detained. Monique said throughout her re-telling of the night and events the female officer (who has only been identified as Jane Doe strangely enough), would often interject her opinion saying things like “he could have been a terrorist” among other things. After speaking to the female officer Monique was placed in the back of an SUV, still cuffed. She would say that she was left alone for hours before a detective later came to take her official statement and “apologized profusely.” Despite this she was still led back through the hotel lobby handcuffed. It was not until about 5:00 in the morning (remember this started just after 9pm) that she was released.

It was not made clear exactly what was done in the Mesa police department in the very beginning after all of this. I cannot tell you if any of the officers were put on administrative leave or suspended or placed in another department pending the outcome of the shooting. What I can say is that the police department did not release the body cam footage. It was said that Shaver's wife, Laney Sweet had asked to see the footage. Initially it was denied, which I get in the beginning. Later the prosecutor would tell Sweet that she could view it on the condition that she agreed not to discuss it with members of the press. By this time it seems Sweet had taken to taping all conversations involving the shooting of her husband. What I cannot say is when this happened.

In early March of 2016 it was announced that the prosecutors were charging Brailsford with 2^nd degree murder and manslaughter. It is still unclear at what capacity he was still a member of the police department. However, later that month the department officially fired Brailsford but his firing had nothing to do with the shooting. The department cited “several policy violations and unsatisfactory performance” as the reason for his firing. It had been discovered and, at least at this point, widely publicized that on the side of Brailsford service rifle it had been engraved with the words “You're Fucked” and “Molon Labe” that in Greek means “come and take them.” I have seen the pictures of his weapon where the “You're Fucked” is displayed and I have to say that rather than an engraving, it looks to me to be more like decals but I will say, either way, the letters are very big and quite noticeable. In fact, they were so noticeable that there is absolutely no way that no one ever saw it. On top of it being a violation of policy, it also in my opinion was disrespectful and stupid. The fact that he was fired for it, but not until after the shooting and charges being filed against him for murder makes it seem to me that those reasons were scapegoat reasons to fire him. Let me be clear in saying I absolutely believe he should have been fired for a multitude of reasons and I understand that the department had to watch how they handled things. This is why you hear often of officers being put on leave awaiting a review of the investigation. Of course sometimes they are fired for their actions at a scene and it is made clear that the department did not support the actions taken. But again, that was not the case here.

In May of 2016 a judge ordered that “portions” of the body cam footage be released but the actual shooting was not released. When Brailsford went on trial in late 2017 both the defense and the prosecution asked that the footage be sealed and the judge agreed.

I cannot say a lot about what was presented as far as evidence at the trial. I can say that both Luis Nunez and Monique Portillo testified to what proceeded the police call and for Monique what occurred after. It is not clear whether Charles Langley testified on either side. By the time of the trial he had taken an early retirement and had moved to the Philippines. Brailsford did testify at his trial in his own defense. I did come across something said by Brailsford, but I have to admit that I am unsure if this is a statement he made in court, or whether this was in a signed statement about the events of January 18, 2016. Brailsford stated that Shaver was crawling....”trying to gain a position of advantage in order to gain a better firing position on us.” Let's talk about that...

First, while I agree that technically the officers could not officially know this at the time, Shaver was unarmed. He no weapon on him whatsoever. In fact, while this all started about a rifle being “waved around” and I agree that the gun in question did look quite real, it was a pellet gun that is unlikely to kill a person. Secondly, Brailsford's statement indicates as if Shaver just decided to start crawling to the officers on his own, which in his mind gave him the right to begin shooting. If this case was not so sad this statement would be completely laughable! When you watch the body cam, something that Brailsford HAD to know even in the beginning would be seen and heard you know that Shaver is crawling because he was told to do so!! I say this because even if this was just in his initial statement as the shooting would be reviewed he had to know his superiors would see the body cam footage even if it was never released to the public. If it was his statement in court then he absolutely already knew that the footage would be shown to the jury. Either way his statement in my opinion was self serving and asinine.

Brailsford would claim that when Shaver reached back he believed he was reaching for a weapon hence he began firing. Of the six officers, to which we can assume at least two (he and Langley who was in charge) had their guns pointed at him. We can absolutely see Langley's as it is his body cam footage that was released and since Brailsford did the shooting he was aimed at him, but you can also assume that at least two other officers likely had their weapons in Shaver's direction. That would still leave two, although I am unsure two were needed, to watch over Monique who had been handcuffed. And yet, Brailsford, a two year veteran of the force, who already had some questionable issues, was the only one who fired thinking that Shaver had a weapon. Brailsford was not remorseful on the stand stating that if that situation were to happen again, he would react and do the same as he had on that day.

It was also brought out in the trial, and possibly sooner, that Shaver's BAC was three times the legal limit. Nunez testified that while he did not catch that Shaver was “drunk” in the elevator when they first met him, he soon realized it when reaching his room. In the same respect Nunez also said that he did not fear Shaver in any way, nor did he feel uncomfortable leaving Monique in the room with him the two times he left the room. He was asked on the stand about seeing the police officers coming into the hotel as he was headed to the lobby. He admitted that he figured they were there because of the issue with the gun but that his phone rang and he and his girlfriend began to argue so he left the hotel and by the time he returned the shooting had already occurred. It is unclear whether he was interviewed by police during the investigation. It would be theorized that Shaver's intoxication likely caused him to be confused on how to comply in some ways.

After a six week trial it took the jury two days to return with a verdict. They found Brailsford not guilty. This is absolutely not surprising despite the evidence presented. Seldom are officers found guilty. The overwhelming idea is that a police officer puts their lives on the line every day for the ordinary citizen and they are forced to make split second decisions. I searched, and searched again, trying to see if I could find anything that indicated how the jury came to this decision. It is simply theorized that the state was unable to prove that, considering or in despite of his training, Brailsford had acted recklessly. I did find something interesting, something I have never heard of before that I fear if there had been a conviction it would have been overturned and a new trial considered. Apparently both sides had rested and given their closing arguments. The judge gave the jury their instructions and they started their deliberations. The state was upset at how one of the jury instructions read and brought it to the court's attention. It seems all agreed on the wording of the instruction as there is special care used in the wording on a regular basis and in regular trials and this was far from a regular trial. So, the following day the jury was brought back in and both sides were given the right to give closing statements AGAIN, based on the new wording of the instructions and once again they were given to the jury and they left to deliberate. When it was stated that they took two days to come to a verdict it was unclear if this was in totality or whether it was only after the second set of closing arguments were given.

Two hours after the verdict was announced the Mesa Police Department released the body cam footage that included the actual shooting. I am unsure if this was done because they felt the jury had justified the shooting and they were in the clear with society or what their reasons were but it appears it did little to nothing to calm the community. In fact, to this day there is still outrage not just in the community but nationally, if not also internationally. And, although the next bit of news was not release until almost a year after the occurrence, the Mesa Police Department did not do themselves any favors.

As I stated before Brailsford had been fired in March of 2016 allegedly for actions unrelated to the shooting of Daniel Shaver. It was said that he appealed this action the following day but seeing as he was facing trial it was said that his appeal would not be heard until the conclusion of the trial. His acquittal occurred in mid December of 2017. In July of 2019 it was learned that Brailsford had been reinstated to the department in August of 2018. However, he was put in what was called a “budget position” and that there had been an agreement made between Brailsford and the department. The agreement was that he would be reinstated long enough to file the paperwork to be “medically retired.” Brailsford and his attorney were claiming that he suffered from PTSD resulting from the shooting and then later the trial. By doing this Brailsford was allowed to “retire” and receive his pension of $2,500 for the rest of his life. Brailsford officially worked at total of forty-two days before he once again left the force. I should also point out that the agreement also set aside up to three million dollars for Brailsford to defend himself against, or pay settlements to civil lawsuits he was facing and the department agreed to they would give him a “neutral” job reference to anyone who asked but that he would never work for that department again. His attorney had argued, apparently successfully, that the acquittal at trial showed there “was never a factual termination because the shooting was justified.” No one seemed to point out that technically he was not fired over the shooting. But, the fact that they had held this information from the public for nearly a year outraged people.

At least three civil lawsuits have been filed because of the events of that night in January. One was brought by Laney Sweet, Shaver's wife and the mother of his two daughters. Another was brought by Shaver's parents and the third was brought by Monique Portillo. It does not appear that any of the suits have been settled in any way as of yet. Part of the reason it is taking so long is because just after his trial Brailsford filed for bankruptcy. By law discovery for the civil suits had to be paused for a period of time. It has been ruled that four of the six officers have been discharged from either of the Shavers' cases. It was also ruled that the hotel itself cannot be held responsible. I must say that I have to agree with both of these rulings.

Arizona law prevents the hotel from being sued. Someone cannot be sued when a complaint call is made to the police. The law specifies that this remains true even if the call includes “inaccurate or incomplete” information. As I said, I agree this, at least as it applies here. It was said that when the police officers went into the hotel they went straight to Room 502. They did not talk to the desk clerk that made the call to find any information. In addition to this if we are going to apply the fact that police officers have specialized training and knowledge pertaining to situations then we should also believe they know how and what to do and if they feel they need more information they will do what they need for that. They should not be responsible after police officers have acted whether or not they act on faulty information or not. It is their job to access the situation and get the details to formulate a plan on their next moves. As far as the other four officers being dismissed from the lawsuit, they followed orders and did not act irrationally.

In early 2018 the Department of Justice reopened the case and was said to be looking into a civil rights violations against Shaver by Brailsford. It is unclear if anything ever came of this.

In 2019 the Mesa Police Department posted on their Facebook page that were encouraging people to reply. Someone commented on the page saying “Is making innocent civilians crawl down a hotel hallway taught at the academy?” Someone else responded their support for officers. Another comment was made by a Mesa Police officer tagging the last poster saying “*** that makes too much sense for some of these idiots that post and have nothing else to complain about. Thank you for supporting LEO.” The officer was a twenty year veteran of the department. The “admin” of the page liked the officer's comment and a screenshot was taken of this before first the like was removed and later the post. It showed the continued animosity between citizens and the department.

Laney Sweet has been very active here recently especially on her TikTok account. She also runs a Facebook page called Justice for Daniel Shaver. She has often commented how she and her daughters suffer without him, are about to lose their home (they currently now live in Colorado) and how she cannot allow her daughters on the Internet in fear they will find the video of their father's murder. And both officers most involved have been able to retire from the department and receive a full pension.

While doing this case I came across some statistics that surprised even me. After the 2014 police shooting of Michael Brown the Washington Post did an investigation. They claim to have discovered that while the FBI kept a file and list of all fatal police shootings that it was being under reported “by more than half.” Apparently while the FBI had this list departments were no required to give the information as it was on a voluntary basis. With this being the case many departments did not report any, or all shootings. The Washington Post seems to have committed a division of sorts that somehow, and allegedly, tracks these fatal police shootings more accurately. It is said they rely on news accounts, social media and police reports. They have been doing this since 2015 and there have been an average of 1,000 of these every year. The newspaper has also broken down the statistics by race. I will not put all of that on here but it is fairly easy to find online. I do want to point out though that according to their database New Mexico, Alaska and Oklahoma have the highest rate of fatal police shootings. I found this information interesting as I am unsure that I have heard many from those states.

Keep in mind that these statistics are only on FATAL police SHOOTINGS. These would not include cases such as George Floyd and Eric Garner since those did not involve shootings but other forms of excessive force.

I am in no way “anti-police” but I do believe that there should be more, and better training. I see this no different than the laws that have changed how investigators are allowed to interrogate suspects. Up until way past the mid-1900's investigators could use any means necessary to get answers from a suspect. Many resorted to beatings. It is now illegal to do those sorts of interrogations and many of the “old school” investigators refused to change tactics. Granted Brailsford had only been on the force for a mere two years so he was not an old school veteran set in his ways. In fact, his behavior had to have either been taught or his personality was such that in my opinion he should have never been a police officer. One has to wonder if the fact that his father was a police officer played a role in things.