Tennessee Couple Murdered Infant Girl Who Died from ‘Acute Methamphetamine Toxicity’: Authorities

 

Christy Shadowens and Ronald Spencer appear in photos released by the MNPD.

The Metropolitan Nashville Police Department (MNPD) announced that Ronald Lee Spencer, 40, and Christy Michele Shadowens, 48, are accused of first-degree murder in the death of Alayna Shadowens on Jan. 27, 2021. The indictment also accuses the two defendants of aggravated child neglect, the MNPD said.

The infant was the niece of Christy Shadowens, the police determined.

“Alayna Shadowens had been staying with the couple for several days when Christy Shadowens discovered her niece unresponsive and not breathing in the couple’s Bonnalynn Drive residence,” the MNPD continued. “The child was transported to Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital where she was pronounced dead shortly after arrival.”

The local medical examiner’s office concluded that Alayna “died of acute methamphetamine toxicity,” according to an MNPD press release.

A subsequent investigation determined that the two defendants “were the sole care providers for Alayna at the time of her death and are responsible for narcotics in the home,” the MNPD added.

Generally speaking, caretakers owe a heightened duty of legal care to children.

The MNPD said Spencer was already in jail on “un-related drug charges,” but Christy Shadowens was on the lam as of Thursday. The department suspected that she may be in Dickson, Tenn., and asked anyone familiar with her whereabouts to call 615-742-7463. Callers to that number “can remain anonymous and qualify for a cash reward,” the department added.

According to an online court docket, Spencer also faces an ongoing prosecution involving counts of reckless driving, possession of a revoked license, driving while under the influence, and multiple counts of drug possession.  That case dates back to last July.

Online court records and a three-page indictment both indicate that Spencer and Shadowens are charged with two counts of felony murder, a charge which is included within Tennessee’s first-degree murder statute.  Prosecutors can allege felony murder when a death occurs during the perpetration of an underlying felony.  Law&Crime previously explained the elements prosecutors must prove in order to convict on felony murder and aggravated child neglect in another recent report from Tennessee.

According to state law, first-degree murder is punishable in Tennessee by the death penalty, by life in prison without the possibility of parole, or by life in prison (presumably with the chance of parole). It is unclear which possible punishment prosecutors will seek in this case because the matter is in its early stages.

The court records list Shadowens under the name Christy Michele Calhoun, which the MNPD tells Law&Crime is Shadowens’ maiden name.

The indictment against Shadowens and Spencer is below.

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/tennessee-couple-murdered-infant-girl-who-died-from-acute-methamphetamine-toxicity-authorities/?fbclid=IwAR20HDFHBZi2E5O6ho3KF_3caq1cUKtm0Y_EBhTYlIibSPzHUI3k920P7l0

Collier deputies discover children in squalid conditions while responding to minivan fire

Dominick Lento and Alycia Lento were arrested on Tuesday after deputies received a report in reference to a minivan fire at 3775 29th Avenue NE in Golden Gate Estates. The Collier County deputy made the couple aware of the fire to make sure the occupants of the home evacuated as the fire inched closer to the home.

Deputies had difficulty reaching a two-year-old boy to remove him from the home due to the piles of clothes and trash all over the floor.

One of the deputies entered the home to search for more occupants to be sure everyone was out. Living conditions of the home’s interior was in disarray and hazardous. Piles of trash, clothing, broken furniture, food containers, and various unidentifiable objects made it difficult to walk throughout the home, according to the arrest report.

One of the children told deputies that they had not eaten anything all day and that the mother gives them small white pills to help them fall asleep.

A search of the home revealed a loaded rifle and a loaded pistol in a location that the children can easily access.

One of the neighbors informed the deputy that one of the children was outside around 3:00 a.m. when he returned home from work over the past weekend.

https://nbc-2.com/news/crime/2022/02/24/collier-county-couple-arrested-after-children-were-found-living-in-unfit-conditions/?fbclid=IwAR3tHuLhC7WuSPFTzSUBW-XeN5SIWmFgp_lhS2qNx9vvaRARj_n2bO3PCO4

Idaho Man and Woman Fractured 14 Bones in 7-Week-Old Baby Girl’s Body During ‘Traumatic’ Episodes of Sex Abuse and Child Abuse: Authorities

 

An Idaho couple were recently arrested in connection with a horrific child abuse case involving sexual assault and “traumatic” injury last week. Now, new details about the case have emerged.

Nicholas T. Branson, 26, stands accused of felony injury to a child and forcible sexual penetration by a foreign object. Hailey N. Harris, 26, stands accused of felony injury to a child. Both defendants hail from Hayden, Idaho and were arrested on Jan. 21, 2022 by deputies with the Kootenai County Sheriff’s Office. Branson and Harris remain in jail on $20,000 bail, which is mandatory in the Gem State unless one is accused of a crime that could result in the death penalty.

The alleged victim in the case is a 7-week-old baby girl.

In December, KCSO deputies responded to Kootenai Health, a hospital in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, after the agency received reports of the infant sustaining “traumatic” injuries that were said to be both “significant and critical” and consistent with sexual abuse, according to court documents cited by the Coeur d’Alene Post Falls Press.

After a month-long investigation, authorities executed arrest warrants and took the pair into custody.

Additional and recently-released documents cited by the paper allege that a doctor who examined the child described her as suffering brain injuries “very specific to abuse” and “not seen in accidental head injury.” According to medical personnel cited by law enforcement, the girl suffered at least 14 fractures, including multiple fractures to both legs. Those court documents say that such injuries are likely caused by “forceful grabbing and twisting” of an infant’s limbs.

But that wasn’t nearly all the doctors found.

Additionally, doctors reportedly said, the girl appeared to have sustained multiple rib fractures that likely occurred at different times. Those fractures are reportedly consistent with blunt force trauma and/or squeezing. The girl also had liver damage that was said to be consistent with blunt force trauma to her abdomen.

The girl also showed signs of bruising on her torso. Those bruises, doctors said, were “patterned after a fist or fingers.” She also reportedly had mouth injuries consistent with a bottle being roughly forced into her mouth. Medical staff at the hospital also told law enforcement there was evidence of trauma on the child’s genitals.

According to the KCSO, law enforcement collected evidence that included a bloody diaper and numerous allegedly tell-tale text message exchanges between Harris and Branson regarding the girl.

“She won’t stop ducking [sic] crying,” Harris reportedly said to Branson in a frantic string of messages one day in December of last year.

“I’m going to freak out,” those messages allegedly continued.  “I cannot handle it anymore.”

When questioned by police, Branson allegedly admitted to causing some of the girl’s injuries and to sexually abusing the newborn. Harris, however, denied shaking or sexually abusing the child.

The child abuse charges are punishable by up to 10 years in state prison. The sexual abuse charge is punishable by life in prison.

Prosecutors are reportedly likely to request additional bail for the defendants in a hearing currently slated for next week.

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/idaho-man-and-woman-fractured-14-bones-in-7-week-old-baby-girls-body-during-traumatic-episodes-of-sex-abuse-and-child-abuse-authorities/

Minneapolis Man Sentenced for Repeatedly Making ‘Abusive Sexual Contact’ With Teen Boy Who ‘Began to Cry’ on Airplane Flight Home After Hockey Game

 

A Minneapolis man was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison earlier this week for engaging in non-consensual and abusive sexual contact with a minor on an airplane out of Boston in April 2019.

Neeraj Chopra, 41, was sentenced to 15 months in prison by U.S. District Judge Nancy E. Brasel on Thursday. After originally being charged with two additional transportation-related crimes, the defendant was only found guilty on the one abusive sexual conduct charge and sentenced in line with a request from federal prosecutors.

According to the brief, one-page indictment obtained by Law&Crime, Chopra violated a sex crime statute on a Jet Blue flight on April 8, 2019 “by touching” a 16-year-old victim’s “groin over clothing.”

A sentencing memorandum filed by the Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office sheds additional light on the circumstances of the incident “During the second leg of the trip home from a hockey tournament in Buffalo, New York attended by numerous family members, N.F. took his window seat on Jet Blue Flight 1735 from Boston to Minneapolis,” the memo says. “Chopra was seated in the middle seat next to N.F., and another passenger was initially seated in the aisle seat next to Chopra, though that passenger left his seat during the flight and did not return. Chopra did not initially move to the empty seat.”

The defendant quickly took advantage of the situation by getting a blanket out of his backpack and draping it “over his lap” as well as over “a portion of N.F.’s right leg,” according to the sentencing memo, which recounts the evidence shown and found to have been correct at trial.

“With his arm under the blanket, Chopra placed his hand on N.F.’s right knee,” the memo goes on. N.F. moved closer to the window and asked Chopra to move over, stating words to the effect of ‘do you mind?’ Chopra apologized and removed his hand from N.F.’s knee.”

But that wasn’t nearly the end of it.

After taking out his tablet, the defendant initiated his victim in conversation, bringing up his background in IT, showing the boy things on the screen, “including photos of himself and his friends partying.” He also asked the boy if he wanted to “hang out sometime.” Apparently wise to the much-older man’s designs, the victim explained “that he was a junior in high school” and, when pressed by the defendant to hang out, entered a fake name and phone number into Chopra’s cellular phone.

Still, Chopra was not content to leave the teen alone.

“Later in the flight, Chopra put his tray table down and his head on the tray table as if he was sleeping; the blanket was still on Chopra’s lap and N.F.’s leg,” the memo continues. “With his left arm under the blanket, Chopra again put his hand on N.F.’s right knee and moved his hand around on N.F.’s knee and inner thigh. Afraid and uncomfortable, N.F. tried tapping his brother C.F., who was seated directly in front of him, but C.F. was sleeping and did not respond. N.F. attempted to move away from Chopra and asked him to move. Chopra removed his hand a second time, apologized and claimed he must have fallen asleep.”

The reprieve, however, didn’t last for long; things eventually became unbearable for the victim. From the filing at length:

Chopra returned his head to the tray table and again touched N.F.’s leg and inner thigh with his hand and arm under the blanket. Unable to get his brother’s attention, N.F. took three photographs of Chopra’s hand and arm on N.F.’s right leg partially covered by the blanket.  Taken over a 10-to-15-minute period, the photographs show Chopra’s increasing encroachment on N.F.’s personal space. Chopra’s hand and arm move first from the side of N.F.’s right leg closest to Chopra, then to the top of N.F.’s leg, and eventually to N.F.’s inner right thigh and groin area. The final photo, Government Exhibit 2d, shows N.F.’s right leg entirely covered by Chopra’s left arm and Chopra’s elbow resting atop N.F.’s groin area. N.F. became so uncomfortable with Chopra’s touching that he began to cry.

When C.F. eventually responded to N.F.’s attempts to get his attention, he turned around to see that N.F. was in distress. In fact, C.F. testified that he had never seen that look on his brother’s face before. C.F. then summoned a flight attendant and asked her to check on Chopra. The flight attendant testified that she did not have to wake Chopra, who immediately raised his head and responded affirmatively when she asked him if he was okay. N.F. testified that as Chopra was raising his head from the tray table to respond to the flight attendant, Chopra ran his hand along N.F.’s inner thigh and up over his penis before removing his hand from N.F.’s leg.

After that, the older brother contacted his father and said there was a problem. The boys’ father switched seats with his youngest son. Chopra, when asked by the older brother, finally moved to the long-empty seat next to him.

Law enforcement met the defendant at the gate, who admitted to touching the boy inappropriately, but said it was because he was asleep and having a bad dream “about a family member being killed.” That same story was repeated during trial and rejected by a Minnesota jury.

[image via Joe Raedle/Getty Images]

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/minneapolis-man-sentenced-for-repeatedly-making-abusive-sexual-contact-with-teen-boy-who-began-to-cry-on-airplane-flight-home-after-hockey-game/

Arizona CPS Laws and Parents Rights

We understand a visit from a DCS (Department of Child Safety) Specialist can be scary, devastating and disconcerting.

But despite what people might think, DCS wasn’t created solely to separate children from their parents. It was created for the main purpose of working with families to guarantee that children are safe.

One of the more vital duties of DCS is to help families get the services needed for them to stay together when possible and to reinforce their family relationships.

When DCS discovers an accusation of child neglect or abuse, state law specifies the department carry out a comprehensive investigation.

DCS requires your help to evaluate your family’s necessities and to supply services in the fastest time possible.

When your child faces considerable neglect or abuse, DCS is obligated to step in, which might include taking the child(ren) away from your house.

DCS tries to balance the parental legal rights and the rights and needs of children to live in a wholesome and safe environment.

Even if DCS examines your family, it does not necessarily mean the child is going to be taken.

As a matter of fact, 10% of DCS accounts end up with the child being taken.

In the immense majority of the contacting of families, DCS and families work collaboratively to settle safety issues and devoid of any children being separated from their parents.

So, what happens if DCS gets in contact with you?

Parents Rights Arizona

In a DCS probe, Arizona law requires the Department of Child Safety to give the parent, custodian or guardian with written evidence defining their rights. With initial contacting, DCS is required to inform the parent, custodian or guardian that:

• DCS has no legal jurisdiction to influence the parent, custodian or guardian to receive services or to work together with the examination.
• The one that is suspected is investigated by DCS and the particular accusation or complaint made against them.
• If they have or have not agreed to cooperate with the investigation or to be involved with the services offered, DCS will continue with their investigation.
• He or she’s refusal to work with the examination or to involve themselves in services offered doesn’t in and of itself establish grounds for custody temporarily.
• Department of Child Safety can file a petition with juvenile courts suggesting that the child needs protective service.
• Any and all information given in reaction to the accusations will be taken into account throughout the investigation.
• The parent, custodian or guardian can file a complaint indicating how their case is being managed with the Family Advocacy Office and/or Ombudsman-Citizens’ Aide, and to petition DCS judgments. DCS is required to give them the phone number to the Ombudsman-Citizens’ Aide.
• Parents have the right to reply to the accusations in writing or verbally, including giving information, and to have that information deemed in establishes if the child requires protective services.
• Refusing to work with the investigation or to involve in services offered doesn’t establish grounds for child removal unless brief custody is obviously necessary to prohibit the child from experiencing neglect or abuse.
• Any written responses, without excluding any documentation, will be included in the case documentation.
• Everything the person writes or says may be used in court proceedings.
• Department of Child Safety will keep any replies to the accusations, including any information given, in the case documentation and will give this information to the court prior to a trial or hearing associated with the dependency appeal.

Can CPS or DCS Remove My Children from the Home?

Few of the children that are reported are removed from their homes.

Although, sometimes children are required to be removed to keep them safe while the parents work on their circumstances.

When the Department of Child Safety takes a child away from their home or thinks about removing a child, they will partake in a team meeting to make decisions.

This meeting will bring together people that are involved with the child’s family and the child themselves.

DCS promotes the family to bring supportive people like family members, neighbors, friends or community people to the meeting.

The meeting’s purpose is to talk about the child’s safety, where they’ll reside, and to determine family sources that can assist the family to protect the child.

DCS takes into consideration all options to protect the child from neglect or abuse prior to placing them in foster care.

 source

ARS 13-3623 – Child Abuse – Arizona Law & Penalties

 

ARS 13-3623 is the Arizona statute that defines the crime of child abuse. People commit this offense if, under certain circumstances, they cause a child to suffer physical injury, allow a child to be injured, or allow a child to be placed in a situation that endangers the child’s health or well-being. A violation of this law can lead to a Class 2 felony charge punishable by up to 10 years in state prison.

The language of ARS 13-3623 states that, for a conviction under this law, a prosecutor must prove that a defendant committed child abuse and acted either:

• intentionally or knowingly,
• recklessly, or
• with criminal negligence.

Examples

• allowing a child to stay in a building in which people are using flammable chemicals to manufacture a dangerous drug.
• knowingly hitting a child where the act causes serious physical injury.
• leaving a child in a car on a hot day with the windows rolled up.

Defenses

People accused of child abuse can challenge the accusation with a legal defense. A few common defenses include the parties showing that:

• they were acting within their legal rights to discipline the child,
• they were falsely accused, and/or
• a child was injured by something other than abuse.

Penalties

A violation of ARS 13-3623 is a felony offense (as opposed to a misdemeanor). Depending on the facts of the case, child abuse can be charged as either a:

• Class 2 felony,
• Class 3 felony,
• Class 4 felony,
• Class 5 felony, or
• Class 6 felony.

A Class 2 felony is the most severe charge and is punishable by custody in state prison for up to 10 years.

In this article, our Phoenix Arizona criminal defense attorneys will discuss what the law is under this statute, defenses available if charged, the penalties for a conviction, and related crimes.

 

 

1.How does Arizona law define “child abuse”?

Under Arizona law, people are guilty of child abuse if they, under certain circumstances, do any of the following:

1. cause a child to suffer physical injury,
2. allow a child to be injured, or
3. allow a child to be placed in a situation that endangers the child’s health or well-being.ⁱ

To secure a conviction under this law, a prosecutor has to show that the defendant committed child abuse and he/she did so either:

• intentionally or knowingly,
• recklessly, or
• with criminal negligence.ⁱⁱ

A few definitions here are helpful:

• “knowingly” means that a person is aware or believes that their conduct is of a nature or that a particular circumstance exists,ⁱⁱⁱ
• “recklessly” means that a person commits an act although aware of, and in grossly conscious disregard to, a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm to some person,^ivand
• “criminal negligence” is a when a person acts while failing to perceive that the act may result in a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm.^v

For purposes of this law, a “child” means a person who is under the age of 18.^vi

Note that a person is guilty of child abuse even if he/she is not the parent or guardian of the “victim.”^vii

2. Are there defenses to child abuse charges under ARS 13-3623?

Criminal defense lawyers draw upon several legal strategies to defend against charges brought under this statute. A few common ones include the attorneys showing that:

1. the defendant was lawfully disciplining his/her child.
2. the defendant was falsely accused.
3. a child was injured by something else other than abuse.

2.1 Lawfully disciplining a child

Parents have the right to discipline their children using “corporal punishment.” They can even use an object (such as a belt or paddle) as long as the discipline was reasonably necessary and appropriate to maintain discipline.^viii

2.2 Falsely accused

Unfortunately, people get falsely accused of this crime all of the time. For instance, a child may give a false accusation to gain attention or because they want to get placed out of their home. Further, one parent may falsely accuse another parent in order to win a custody dispute. A defense, then, is for accused people to show that they were unjustly blamed.

2.3 Other cause of injury

Children often get hurt or become endangered in a variety of different ways (for example, through playing or acting out of curiosity). Therefore, defendants can try to establish their innocence by showing that the “victim” was injured by something other than abuse.

 

 

3. What are the penalties?

The penalties for child abuse will depend on the specific facts of a case.

If a defendant commits child abuse under circumstances likely to cause death or serious injury to the child, then the crime is charged as either a:

• Class 2 felony, if the defendant acted intentionally or knowingly (a Class 2 felony is punishable by up to 10 years in prison),
• Class 3 felony, if the defendant acted recklessly (a Class 3 felony is punishable by almost four years in prison), or
• Class 4 felony, if the defendant acted with criminal negligence (a Class 4 felony is punishable by almost three years in prison).

If a defendant commits child abuse under circumstances other than those likely to produce death or serious injury, then the crime is charged as either a:

• Class 4 felony, if the defendant acted intentionally or knowingly,
• Class 5 felony, if the defendant acted recklessly (a Class 5 felony is punishable by up to a year-and-a-half in prison), or
• Class 6 felony, if the defendant acted with criminal negligence (a Class 6 felony is punishable by one year in prison).

4. How can people report instances of child abuse?

People can always report instances of abuse, or make abuse referrals, to a peace officer or a law enforcement agent.

Reports of child abuse can also be made to the Arizona Department of Child Safety (DCS) or by calling the statewide child abuse hotline phone number at 1-888-sos-child. People can call this number in instances of child abuse, child maltreatment, and/or child neglect.^ix

Note that Prevent Child Abuse Arizona is an Arizona organization dedicated to promoting child abuse prevention.^x

Note, too, that if a child abuse case gets started in the Arizona court system, Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) is an organization that helps advocate for a child’s needs.^xi

5. Are there related offenses?

There are three crimes related to child abuse. These are:

1. endangerment – ARS 13-1201,
2. custodial interference – ARS 13-1302, and
3. assault – 13-1203.

5.1 Endangerment – ARS 13-1201

Per ARS 13-1201, endangerment is the offense where people recklessly put someone at risk of imminent death or physical injury.

Depending on the facts of a child abuse case, it is possible for a defendant to face charges of both:

• child abuse, and
• endangerment.

5.2 Custodial interference – ARS 13-1302

Per ARS 13-1302, custodial interference is the offense where people commit an act in relation to a child and do so without legal authority. Some prohibited acts under this statute include:

1. taking a child from another’s lawful custody, and
2. denying a parent access to their child.

Unlike with child abuse, a person does not have to act with a specific criminal state of mind to be guilty of custodial interference.

5.3 Assault – 13-1203

Per ARS 13-1203, assault is the crime where people intentionally or recklessly cause physical injury to someone, intentionally place another person in fear of physical injury, or knowingly touch someone with the intent to injure or provoke them.

Unlike with child abuse, assault is a misdemeanor offense in Arizona.

Note that sexual assault is a separate crime set forth under ARS 13-1406.

 

resource 

COVID-19 Vaccine: What You Need to Know

 he U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has begun authorizing use of vaccines for the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Lisa Maragakis, M.D., M.P.H., senior director of infection prevention, and Gabor Kelen, M.D., director of Johns Hopkins Office of Critical Event Preparedness and Response, address common questions and explain how a vaccine could affect the current pandemic.

How do vaccines work?

Vaccines help people develop immunity to a virus or other germ. A vaccine introduces a less harmful part of that germ — or something created to look or behave like it — into a person’s body. The body’s immune system develops antibodies that fight that particular germ and keep the person from getting sick from it. Later, if the person encounters that germ again, their immune system can “recognize” it and “remember” how to fight it off.

Is there a vaccine for the coronavirus disease?

Pfizer’s vaccine was authorized on Dec. 12, 2020, and Moderna’s version on Dec. 18, 2020.

How will a vaccine prevent COVID-19?

The coronavirus that causes COVID-19 has spikes of protein on each viral particle. These spikes help the viruses attach to cells and cause disease. Some of the coronavirus vaccines in development are designed to help the body “recognize” these spike proteins and fight the coronavirus that has them.

An effective vaccine will protect a person who receives it by lowering their chances of getting COVID-19 if they encounter the coronavirus. Widespread vaccination for the coronavirus means that the virus will not infect as many people. This will limit spread through communities.

Both Pfizer and Moderna report that their vaccines show approximately 95% efficacy at preventing both mild and severe symptoms of COVID-19. This level of efficacy appears to apply across age groups, racial and ethnic groups, and both sexes, as reported in the Pfizer trial.

 

How will we know if a COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective?

In order to be declared safe and effective, a COVID-19 vaccine must pass certain tests and standards. Organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institutes for Health, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) use scientific data from research to help decide if and when new drugs and vaccines can become available to the public. It is important to note that you cannot get COVID-19 from a vaccine. The vaccines contain proteins or other biological substances to stimulate the immune response, but not the coronavirus itself.

Learn more about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines.

How Do We Know a COVID-19 Vaccine Will Be Safe and Effective? 

 

How long will it protect me? Will I have to get a COVID-19 shot every year?

A few people who have had COVID-19 have apparently had a second, often milder case of the disease, and researchers are exploring what this means in terms of how long immunity from the coronavirus lasts. Vaccine developers are looking at ways to boost the effectiveness of a vaccine so that it provides longer immune protection than a natural infection with the coronavirus.

Will the vaccine work if I’ve already had COVID-19 or tested positive for the coronavirus?

The CDC notes that people who have already had COVID-19 or tested positive may still benefit from getting the COVID-19 vaccination. There is not enough information currently available to say if or for how long people are protected from getting COVID-19 after they have had it (natural immunity). Early evidence suggests natural immunity from COVID-19 may not last very long, but more studies are needed to better understand this.

If I get a coronavirus vaccination, do I still have to wear a mask? Physical distance?

Yes. It may take time for everyone who wants a COVID-19 vaccination to get one. A vaccine that is 95% effective means that about 1 out of 20 people who get it may not have protection from getting the illness.

Also, while the vaccine may prevent you from getting sick, it is unknown at this time if you can still carry and transmit the virus to others. That is why, until more is understood about how well the vaccine works, continuing with precautions such as mask-wearing and physical distancing will be important.

Availability of a COVID-19 Vaccine

Will there be enough vaccine for everyone who wants it?

Now that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized COVID-19 vaccines, initial quantities of the vaccine are being distributed across the United States.

Because it will take a while to make and distribute enough of the vaccine for everyone who wishes to be vaccinated against COVID-19, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is recommending groups of people who should get priority. The CDC has been working closely with state health departments and partners to develop these recommendations.

If you are a Johns Hopkins Medicine patient, visit our COVID-19 Vaccine Information and Updates page for all current information on getting vaccinated. Your state’s health department website can also provide updates on vaccine distribution in your area.

Will it be easier or harder to get in some areas?

There could be differences in availability from one place to another. Availability might depend on how much vaccine is produced and how it needs to be transported and stored. For instance, some vaccines must be kept frozen at very low temperatures in order to be effective. Every effort will be made to distribute the vaccine fairly.

Will older adults receive a COVID-19 vaccine?

The CDC is providing recommendations on the order of who receives vaccines. The first group to receive authorized COVID-19 vaccines are frontline healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities. Adults, 75 and older, are expected to receive vaccines, possibly starting in January.

Review the CDC’s guidelines for who gets vaccinated first when supplies are limited.

Will children receive a COVID-19 vaccine?

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for distribution to individuals ages 16 years and older. 

No COVID-19 vaccine has been authorized for children under 16. At least one trial including participants between age 12 and 18 with their parents’ permission is in progress. But it may be late 2021 or even 2022 before there is enough evidence on the timing, safety, effectiveness and practical aspects of vaccinating children for the coronavirus, especially children under age 12.

 

source 

Daniel Shaver Murdered By Mesa Police Department

On January 18, 2016, Daniel Leetin Shaver of Granbury, Texas was fatally shot by police officer Philip Brailsford in the hallway of a La Quinta Inn & Suites hotel in Mesa, Arizona. Police were responding to a report that a rifle had been pointed out the window of Shaver's hotel room.

After the shooting, the rifle, which remained in the room, was determined to be a pellet gun. Following an investigation, Brailsford was charged with second-degree murder and a lesser manslaughter charge and found not guilty by a jury.^[1] Prosecutors argued the shooting was unjustified.^[2] In March 2018, it became known that the United States Department of Justice had reopened the case and was looking into a possible civil rights violation by Brailsford.^[3] Brailsford was reinstated to the Mesa Police Department in August 2018, then over a month later was granted retirement on medical grounds, as well as a pension of $2,500 per month.^[4] Brailsford's lawyer has said that Brailsford suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder due to his shooting of Shaver and the resultant criminal trial.^[5]

37. Philip Brailsford

    Philip Mitchell "Mitch" Brailsford was 26 years old at the time of the shooting. He had been employed with the Mesa Police Department since 2013. Brailsford's father was a police sergeant who had also worked for the Mesa Police Department.^[6] He graduated from Mesa Desert Ridge High School in 2009, was an LDS missionary in Ecuador,^[7] and had signed up with the Arizona National Guard before being hired by Mesa Police. He is married and has a son.^[8]

    Daniel Shaver

    Daniel Leetin Shaver, 26, grew up in Nashville, Tennessee, and graduated from Hillwood High School in 2007. He had lived in Granbury, Texas, with his wife and two daughters. Shaver was employed as a pest control specialist, and was in Mesa for a business trip.^[9]

    Shooting

    According to a police report, Shaver had been staying at a Mesa La Quinta Inn & Suites on business.^[10] He invited two acquaintances, Monique Portillo and Luis Nunez, to his room for drinks. There he showed them a scoped air rifle he was using to exterminate birds inside grocery stores. At one point, the gun was pointed outside his fifth-floor window, prompting a witness to notify the hotel receptionist; the police were immediately called.^[3][11]

    Nunez left the hotel room shortly before police arrived at about 9:20 p.m.^[9] When police arrived at the hotel, they ordered Shaver and Portillo to exit the room. Six officers in the hotel corridor pointed weapons at them and gave them orders for several minutes with frequent warnings that failing to comply with them would get them shot.^[12] Portillo was taken into custody unharmed.^[13]

    Police Sergeant Charles Langley then ordered Shaver, who was lying prone, to cross his legs. Moments later, he ordered Shaver to push himself "up to a kneeling position". While complying with the order to kneel, Shaver uncrossed his legs and Langley shouted that Shaver needed to keep his legs crossed. Startled, Shaver then put his hands behind his back and was again warned by Langley to keep his hands in the air. Langley yelled at Shaver that if he deviated from police instructions again, they would shoot him. Sergeant Langley told Shaver not to put his hands down for any reason. Shaver said, "Please don't shoot me". Upon being instructed to crawl, Shaver put his hands down and crawled on all fours. While crawling towards the officers, Shaver paused and moved his right hand towards his waistband. Officer Philip Brailsford, who later testified he believed that Shaver was reaching for a weapon, then opened fire with his AR-15 rifle, striking Shaver five times and killing him almost instantly. Shaver was unarmed, and may have been attempting to prevent his shorts from slipping down.^{[14][15][16][17]} An autopsy report found that Shaver was intoxicated (with a blood-alcohol level over three times the legal driving limit), which police stated may have contributed to his confused response to their commands.^[18][19]

    Body camera footage

    Shaver's wife requested that the Mesa Police Department release bodycam footage of the event.^[20] The request for the bodycam footage was initially refused. In a recording released by Shaver's wife, purportedly of a meeting between her and Maricopa County prosecutors, she was told that she could watch the video only if she agreed not to discuss its contents with the press.^[14] Prosecutors and defense attorneys in Brailsford's murder trial asked that the bodycam footage be sealed.^[21] Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sam Myers granted the motion to seal the footage.^[22]

    External video

    Brailsford's bodycam, unedited (5:02) on YouTube

    On May 25, 2016, Myers ordered portions of the video released. The released video omits the shooting itself. The redacted version includes footage from Brailsford's body camera up to the time when someone exits Shaver's hotel room and footage from another officer's camera while he escorts a woman from the room.^{[15][23][24][25]} The full unedited body camera footage of the shooting was released by the Mesa Police Department hours after Brailsford was found not guilty of murder and reckless manslaughter.^[20]

    Aftermath

    Criminal charges and termination from police department

    In early March 2016, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office announced it would pursue second-degree murder charges against Brailsford in relation to the incident. According to a statement by the county attorney, "after carefully reviewing the relevant facts and circumstances, we have determined that the use of deadly physical force was not justified in this instance."^[26] Brailsford pleaded not guilty.^[17]

    Later that month, the Mesa Police Department fired Brailsford, citing several policy violations and unsatisfactory performance.^[27] An internal investigation report revealed that Brailsford had violated department weapon policy by engraving his patrol rifle with the phrases "You're fucked" and "Molon labe" (a Greek expression meaning "come and take them").^[28][29] Brailsford had also previously been investigated for body slamming a teenager during an arrest.^[30]

    In the official police report of the incident, Brailsford defended his actions, saying that Shaver crawling towards the officers was Shaver "trying to gain a position of advantage in order to gain a better firing position on us". Shaver had indeed crawled towards the officers after one of them instructed him to. The report stated: "Shaver was co-operative, but sometimes confused by the commands and because of his possible intoxication".^[31]

    Four months after the shooting, Charles Langley, the officer who gave orders to Shaver, retired from the department. By December 2017, Langley had emigrated to the Philippines.^[32][33]

    Criminal trial and acquittal

    Brailsford's trial for second-degree murder was originally scheduled for February 2017. A defense motion challenging the state's probable cause to send the case to trial; appeals to the Arizona Supreme Court over the release of controversially redacted footage from Brailsford's body camera, made a February trial unrealistic. On February 10, 2017, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge George Foster rescheduled the trial for October 23, 2017. Brailsford faced up to 25 years in prison if found guilty of second-degree murder.

    On December 7, 2017, after a six week trial, a jury acquitted Brailsford of all charges.^[11][13]

    Also in December 2017, it was revealed that Brailsford had been involved in a prior incident in 2015 regarding an arrest of teenagers in a store. During the arrest, Brailsford was recorded on video throwing a teenager against a shelf, putting the teenager in a headlock, and then slamming the teenager onto the ground. At the time, the incident was publicized (but Brailsford was not named) by a witness to the arrest, who alleged excessive force because the teenagers "weren't doing anything". A spokesman for the Mesa Police Department said that the department "looked at" the incident and "administratively cleared" Brailsford, because "police work sometimes isn't pretty".^[34][35]

    Bankruptcy and pension

    In January 2018, Brailsford filed for bankruptcy.^[4] In early 2018, the United States Department of Justice opened its own investigation into Shaver's killing.^[3]

    In August 2018, Brailsford was reinstated by the Mesa Police Department, staying for a further 42 days in what the department described as a "budget position". The department agreed to reimburse Brailsford for medical expenses related to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Brailsford's lawyer has said that Brailsford suffered PTSD due to his shooting of Shaver and the resultant criminal trial. The reinstatement allowed Brailsford to apply for "accidental disability" suffered during the course of work. As a result, Brailsford was unanimously approved to be retired on medical grounds. Brailsford was also given a pension of $2,500 per month. The fact that Brailsford was ultimately medically retired instead of remaining fired was only revealed to the public in July 2019.^[4][5][36] According to a pay stub attached to Brailsford's bankruptcy file, he has been working for a steel company in Glendale, Arizona.^[37]

    See also

    • List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, January 2016

    References

    1. 
       
38. Friedersdorf, Conor. "Footage of a Police Shooting That Jurors Chose Not to Punish". The Atlantic. Retrieved December 8, 2017.
39. 
    
40. Closing arguments set to begin in trial of former Mesa officer accused of murder, AZ Family.
41. 
    
42. Garcia, Uriel J. (March 8, 2018). "Mesa police confirm Justice Department investigating officer shooting of Daniel Shaver". The Arizona Republic. Archived from the original on January 28, 2019.
43. 
    
44. Burkitt, Bree; Garcia, Uriel (July 11, 2019). "Fired ex-Mesa police Officer Philip Brailsford rehired to help him get a public-safety pension". Arizona Republic. Retrieved July 13, 2019.
45. 
    
46. "Philip Brailsford, Arizona police officer who shot unarmed man, briefly rehired in order to receive pension". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. July 13, 2019. Retrieved July 13, 2019.
47. 
    
48. Collom, Lindsey (March 5, 2016). "Mesa officer charged with second-degree murder was early user of body-cams". The Arizona Republic. USA Today. Retrieved February 19, 2020.
49. 
    
50. Garcia, Uriel J. "Ex-Mesa officer charged with murder testifies he was 'sad' after shooting". azcentral. Retrieved June 5, 2020.
51. 
    
52. Garcia, Uriel J. (November 29, 2017). "Ex-Mesa officer charged with murder testifies he was 'sad' after shooting". AZCentral. Retrieved February 19, 2020.
53. 
    
54. Alund, Natalie Neysa (January 25, 2016). "Former Nashville man shot and killed by Arizona police". Tennessean.com. USA Today. Retrieved February 19, 2020.
55. 
    
56. "Incident/Investigation Report, Case Number: 2016-0180586" (PDF). Mesa Police Department. February 8, 2016. Retrieved January 29, 2019 – via The Arizona Republic.
57. 
    
58. Ortiz, Erik (December 8, 2017). "Daniel Shaver shooting: Ex-Arizona police officer acquitted of murder". NBC News. Retrieved December 9, 2017.
59. 
    
60. "Jury sees body-cam video of Mesa officer shooting unarmed man". The Arizona Republic. Retrieved December 18, 2017.
61. 
    
62. Mitchell, Garrett; Morganroth, April (February 10, 2017). "New October trial date set in Daniel Shaver murder case". The Arizona Republic. Retrieved July 1, 2017.
63. 
    
64. Bult, Laura (April 3, 2016). "Widow of Daniel Shaver, Texas man fatally shot by Ariz. cop as he cried and pleaded for his life, is demanding body cam footage be released". New York Daily News. Retrieved April 25, 2016.
65. 
    
66. Lowery, Wesley (December 8, 2017). "Graphic video shows Daniel Shaver sobbing and begging officer for his life before 2016 shooting". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 14, 2017.
67. 
    
68. "An ex-cop from Arizona was acquitted for shooting an unarmed, sobbing man". Vox. Retrieved December 18, 2017.
69. 
    
70. Bever, Lindsey (March 31, 2016). "'Please don't shoot me': Man pleads for life moments before being killed by police officer". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 25, 2016.
71. 
    
72. Haaf, Landon (March 31, 2016). "ME: Granbury man was drunk when shot by Ariz. cop". WFAA. Archived from the original on January 30, 2019. 'Shaver was cooperative, but sometimes confused by the commands and because of his possible intoxication,' the [police] report said.
73. 
    
74. "Medical Examiner Report" (PDF). Phoenix, Ariz.: Maricopa County Office of the Medical Examiner. January 22, 2016. Retrieved January 30, 2019.
75. 
    
76. Garcia, Uriel J. (December 8, 2017). "Following not-guilty verdict, Mesa police release video of then-officer Philip Brailsford shooting unarmed man". The Arizona Republic. Retrieved February 24, 2019.
77. 
    
78. Enea, Joe. "Both parties seek to seal body camera video in murder case involving Mesa Officer Philip Brailsford". KNXV-TV. Phoenix, Arizona. Retrieved April 25, 2016.
79. 
    
80. Kiefer, Michael (March 30, 2016). "Judge: Body-camera videos of Texas man's shooting by Mesa police officer won't be released". The Arizona Republic. Retrieved April 25, 2016.
81. 
    
82. Dupuy, Beatrice. "Who is Daniel Shaver? Graphic video shows Arizona cop Philip Brailsford killing Texas dad". Newsweek. Retrieved December 9, 2017.
83. 
    
84. "Mesa Police shooting: Daniel Shaver seen crawling, begging in disturbing video". CBS News. Retrieved December 9, 2017.
85. 
    
86. Chia, Jessica. "Arizona cop is cleared of murder after fatally shooting unarmed man who begged him not to pull trigger". New York Daily News. Retrieved December 9, 2017.
87. 
    
88. Mitchell, Garrett (March 4, 2016). "Mesa officer charged with murder in shooting of unarmed man at hotel". The Arizona Republic. Retrieved February 24, 2019.
89. 
    
90. Billeaud, Jacques (April 9, 2016). "News Agencies Seek to Unseal Video of Fatal Police Shooting". The Washington Times. Retrieved April 25, 2016.
91. 
    
92. Mitchell, Garrett; Cassidy, Megan (March 30, 2016). "Texas man fatally shot by Mesa officer begged for life". The Arizona Republic. Retrieved April 25, 2016.
93. 
    
94. Stern, Ray (December 7, 2017). "Ex-Mesa Police Officer Philip Brailsford Found Not Guilty in Shooting Death of Daniel Shaver". Phoenix New Times. Retrieved February 24, 2019.
95. 
    
96. Ex-Arizona Cop Who Killed Daniel Shaver Involved In Brutal Arrest, TMZ, 12/12/2017.
97. 
    
98. Tait, Robert (April 1, 2016). ""Please don't shoot me" father-of-two begged police before being shot dead". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved July 13, 2019.
99. 
    
100. Garcia, Uriel (November 16, 2017). "Former Mesa police sergeant backs decision by officer now on trial in fatal shooting". azcentral.com. Retrieved July 13, 2019.
101. 
     
102. Garcia, Uriel (December 9, 2017). "Ex-Mesa Officer Philip Brailsford found not guilty of murder in shooting of unarmed man". azcentral.com.
103. 
     
104. Dupuy, Beatrice (December 13, 2017). "Cop who killed Daniel Shaver had a history of excessive force, video shows". Newsweek. Retrieved July 17, 2019.
105. 
     
106. "Teenagers taken down by police at Mesa gas station; some question if cops went too far". ABC 15. Retrieved July 17, 2019.
107. 
     
108. "Former Mesa officer Philip Brailsford acquitted of murder now medically retired - not fired". azfamily.com. Retrieved July 13, 2019.
109. 
     
Garcia, Uriel J. (July 10, 2019). "Fired ex-Mesa police Officer Philip Brailsford rehired to help him get a public-safety pension". AZ Central. Retrieved February 19, 2020.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver

• MESA -- Police in Mesa, Arizona released disturbing body camera video on Thursday hours after a former officer was acquitted of a murder charge in the fatal shooting of an unarmed man.

  The verdict cleared Philip Brailsford, 27, of criminal liability in the 2016 death of Daniel Shaver, of Granbury, Texas. He was also found not guilty of reckless manslaughter, reports CBS Phoenix affiliate KPHO-TV.

  The shooting occurred at a hotel in the Phoenix suburb where officers responded to a report of someone pointing a gun out of a window. The video, obtained by KPHO, shows Brailsford pointing a gun at Shaver as Shaver lies on the ground, holds his hands in the air, cries and begs the officer not to shoot.

  

  Get Breaking News Delivered to Your Inbox

  [WARNING: Graphic content] Body-cam video shows Mesa police shooting

  

  Screenshot of bodycam video released by Mesa Police shows Daniel Shaver holding his arms in the air  KPHO

  Brailsford orders Shaver, 26, to lay face-down in a hallway and refrain from making sudden movements - or risk being shot. He also orders a woman in the hallway to lie on the ground. Shaver is seen complying with the officer's order to put his hands on top of his head and cross his left foot over his right foot.

  "Young man, you are not to move. You are to put your eyes down look down at the carpet  you are to keep your fingers interlaced behind your head you are to keep your feet crossed," Brailsford says. "If you move, we are going to consider that a threat, and we are going to deal with it and you may not survive it, do you understand me?"

  Trending News

  • Surgeon charged in scheme to pay addicts to receive experimental implant
  • Teen recounts seeing dad shot, surviving 30 hours lost in the woods
  • New York City shootings see spike from last year
  • Missing soldier murdered by Army specialist, woman alleges in complaint

  "Yes sir," Shaver says.

  Brailsford then orders the woman to kneel, put her hands in the air and crawl towards officers. Officers then apparently handcuff her out of the view of the camera.

  Brailsford then orders Shaver to kneel, and yells for him to keep his legs crossed, to which Shaver replies, "I'm sorry."

  Shaver is then seen putting his hands behind his back. The officer yells, "Hands up in the air!," and Shaver complies.

  "You do that again we're shooting you, do you understand?" the officer says.

  "Please, do not shoot me," Shaver is heard saying, his hands in the air.

  "Then listen to my instructions!" the officer yells.

  "I'm trying to just do what you say," Shaver says.

  "Don't talk! Listen!" Brailsford yells. He orders Shaver to keep his hands up.

  "Your hands go back in the small of your back or down, we are going to shoot you, do you understand me?" Brailsford yells.

  "Yes sir," Shaver says, sobbing.

  

  Philip Brailsford in court on December 7, 2017 KPHO-TV

  Brailsford then orders Shaver to crawl towards him, to which Shaver again says, "Yes, sir," as he cries. As Shaver inches forward, he is seen reaching toward the waistband of his shorts, and Brailsford opens fire. Brailsford said he fired his rifle because he believed Shaver was grabbing a handgun in his waistband.

  The detective investigating the shooting had agreed Shaver's movement was similar to reaching for a pistol, but has said it also looked as though Shaver was pulling up his loose-fitting basketball shorts that had fallen down as he was ordered to crawl toward officers.

  The investigator noted he did not see anything that would have prevented officers from simply handcuffing Shaver as he was on the floor.

  During the trial, Brailsford testified that he believed 100 percent that Shaver was reaching for a gun and that if in the same situation again, he would make the same decision, KPHO says.

  While no gun was found on Shaver's body, two pellet rifles related to his pest-control job were later found in his room.

  Brailsford's attorney Michael Piccarreta put an arm around his client after the verdict was read.

  "There are no winners in this case, but Mitch Brailsford had to make a split-second decision on a situation that he was trained to recognize as someone drawing a weapon and had one second to react," Piccarreta said. "He didn't want to harm Mr. Shaver... The circumstances that night that were presented led him to conclude that he was in danger. Try to make a decision in one second, life or death. It's pretty hard."

  Piccarreta also said he wasn't sure his client would be interested in trying to get his police job back.

  Shaver's widow, Laney Sweet, and Shaver's parents have filed wrongful-death lawsuits against the city of Mesa over the shooting death.

  

  Texas man Daniel Shaver was killed in January 2016 in his hotel room while traveling for work. CBS Dallas/Fort Worth

  Sweet shook her head "no" after the jury's decision and said she wasn't going to answer any questions. Shaver's parents didn't respond to reporters' questions as they left the courtroom.

  During his trial testimony, Brailsford described the stress that he faced in responding to the call and his split-second decision to shoot Shaver.

  Brailsford told jurors that he was terrified for the safety of officers and a woman who was in the hallway. He also said he felt "incredibly sad" for Shaver.

  Brailsford served as a Mesa officer for about two years before he was fired for violations of departmental policy, including unsatisfactory performance.

  He is one of the few police officers in the U.S. to be charged with murder for shooting someone while on duty.

  The shooting occurred as police departments across the U.S. became focal points of protests over deadly encounters with law enforcement.

  First published on December 8, 2017 / 1:03 PM

• 
  
•