“We can well understand that the family does not wish to have these photographs published in the press or on the internet,” the court wrote, “no one intends to let that happen.” In 2016, an Alabama federal court mentioned “public ridicule” as a reason for its decision to keep juror information secret. A Florida court in 2005 suggested it would keep death photographs from a high-profile murder case off the internet to help protect the family from the emotional turmoil that would result from such publication. In 1992, the highest court in Texas boasted that it had kept an embarrassing sex videotape shown in court out of the hands of a requesting tabloid television show. There is precedent for these sorts of concerns.
#DANIEL SHAVE VIDEO REVIED BY COP TRIAL#
The Arizona Republic reported that the judge said that “the video could anger the public and also ‘serves as turning a burning ember into a flame.’ ” Brailsford’s trial is ongoing.
#DANIEL SHAVE VIDEO REVIED BY COP FULL#
In his ruling last month, Judge George Foster agreed that the media should not get its hands on the full video evidence, even though the videotape was central to a case of intense public concern and was shown in open court. While part of the bodycam footage was released last year, the Mesa police edited out the footage of the actual shooting. That’s because the judge in Mesa police officer Philip Brailsford’s second-degree murder trial agreed with the defense that the media should not be allowed to see the video of Brailsford killing Daniel Shaver. Those of us who weren’t in the Arizona courtroom the day the body camera video was played for the jury can’t assess either man’s behavior.
The man makes a “quick movement”-maybe it’s a move to pull up his shorts, maybe it looks like he’s about to pull out a gun-and the officer shoots him to death. Taken by an officer’s body-worn camera, it apparently shows a man crawling toward the officer, looking confused.
0 kommentar(er)
