- Last Active
As far as I know he was fired for an unrelated incident.
"Brailsford was fired shortly after the shooting for violating department policy in an unrelated incident."
"Piccarreta also said he wasn’t sure his client would be interested in trying to get his police job back."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/08/graphic-video-shows-daniel-shaver-sobbing-and-begging-officer-for-his-life-before-2016-shooting/emnofseattle said:I mean I don’t know what you do about these cases. The officer was fired, he was charged, a judge agreed to let the trial proceed and the jury acquitted. I mean in our society the people have the final say over the state before someone gets sent to jail. So clearly the problem was not the system, it’s that the regular people didn’t want to convict.
What to watch for, in some states the public employee unions have so much power that they might be able to force this guy back into the police department using the acquittal as evidence that he was wrongfully fired.
"During the monthlong trial, jurors watched video from Garcia Zarate’s four-hour police interrogation, in which he offered varying statements about his actions on the pier. At one point he said he had aimed at a “sea animal,” and at another point, he said the gun had been under a rag that lay on the ground near the waterfront, and that it fired when he stepped on it."
He apparently told some versions of his story where he had full possession of the gun. The jury thinks the suspect was in possession of the gun and they convict him of that crime. By basic logic he is also at least guilty of manslaughter. I'm having a hard time coming up with 2 reasonable conclusions if you believe this man had the gun in his possession. If you think he dropped the gun and it went off randomly, he's still guilty.The prosecution had circumstantial evidence (no eyewitness accounts, no surveillance footage), and in California when circumstantial evidence leads to two conflicting reasonable conclusions, the jury is instructed: "If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence." (CALCRIM224) The jury deliberated for six days. They did their job.