Officer Involved: Brad Lunsford (update)
the gaslighting of police officers
On August 2, 2022 Las Cruces, NM police officer Brad Lunsford was involved in a fatal Officer-Involved-Shooting (OIS) with a career criminal (Presley Eze).
The deadly use of force by Officer Lunsford was investigated internally by the Las Cruces Police Department and criminally by the Dona Ana County District Attorney’s Office.
It was determined that the actions of Officer Lunsford were within department policy, according to training, and in compliance with the law.
The case was over, he was cleared, and Officer Lunsford went back to work.
This next part will sound sickeningly familiar.
Over a year later Officer Lunsford was formally charged with Voluntary Manslaughter by the New Mexico Office of the Attorney General (led by Attorney General Raul Torrez).
Roadmap
In a prior article I explained the facts of this case and provided a legal analysis ⬇️
(My prior article on the case)
My prior commentary was featured by the National Police Association in their coverage of this case⬇️
(National Police Association - Officer Brad Lunsford)
Therefore, in this article, I will include a brief synopsis of the facts, an update on the case (as Officer Lunsford’s trial is set for February 2025), an examination of the AG’s “expert witness”, and some additional thoughts on the phenomenon of criminals gaining control of Tasers.
Synopsis
A gas station employee called police to report that Presley Eze has shoplifted beer.
Officer Lunsford contacted Mr. Eze (who was still on scene in a vehicle).
Mr. Eze concealed his identity.
Officer Lunsford gave Mr. Eze a lawful order to exit the vehicle and Mr. Eze actively resisted.
Officer Lunsford utilized empty hand tactics to overcome the active and unlawful resistance.
Officer Lunsford, Mr. Eze, and a second police officer fell to the ground.
The second officer was on his back with Mr. Eze lording over him and Officer Lunsford was trying to gain control of Mr. Eze from behind.
While on the ground Mr. Eze grabbed for the second officer’s gun but was unsuccessful.
During the struggle the second officer’s Taser fell to the ground and Mr. Eze grabbed for it and gained control of the weapon.
Mr. Eze initially grabbed the Taser with his left hand and then transferred it into his right hand.
Officer Lunsford perceived an immediately deadly threat posed by Mr. Eze’s illegal possession of the weapon and fired one round to stop the threat.
Mr. Eze sustained a fatal gunshot wound.
Prosecution
Officer Lunsford utilized deadly force after Mr. Eze concealed his identity, resisted a lawful arrest, attempted to take possession of an officer’s gun, and then successfully was able to gain control of an officer’s Taser.
It was reasonable for Officer Lunsford to perceive a deadly threat.
I’ll explain⬇️
Q: What would a reasonable police officer believe that Mr. Eze had planned to do with the weapon?
A: Use it against the officers that he was currently fighting.
Q: If Mr. Eze had been able to deploy the Taser - why should an officer perceive that as a deadly threat?
A: The five second cycle (shock) of the Taser likely would not mortally wound a police officer. That is not the deadly threat. The danger is - if an officer were successfully “tased” the officer would be incapacitated for five seconds (and then an additional 5 seconds every time the trigger was pressed). During that time Mr. Eze would have been able to take the possession of the officer’s gun (which he had already attempted), grab a rock to smash in the officer’s face, beat the officers to death with their batons, etc… you get the point.
Therefore, since a deadly threat can easily be articulated and achieved if Mr. Eze gained possession of the Taser - a reasonable officer would use every option (including deadly force) in an effort to thwart an imminent deadly threat.
But instead Officer Lunsford was charged with Voluntary Manslaughter (Third Degree Felony), Firearm Enhancement (Discharge) and is facing nearly a decade in prison if convicted. His trial is scheduled to start February 3, 2025.
Expert Witnesses
The indictment cited the opinion of “expert witnesses” that will aid in the prosecution.
The Chief
Retired Police Chief (and now “expert witness” Chet Epperson (of Rockford, Illinois) provided a statement over the phone to the lead AG investigator who documented the following conversation, “Chief Epperson said he did see the male subject with the CEW in his hand, which was noticeable because it is yellow. However, he also stated he observed the CEW in the subject's right hand which the subject was utilizing for support on the ground. He said the subject's arm was extended on the pavement, with his arm straight (elbow locked), hand forward, and the CEW was not pointed at the officers. Chief Epperson also stated there were multiple less-lethal options to prevent the rapid escalation of force by Officer Lunsford. To include the use of a CEW, baton, or OC spray, depending on what was available to him at the time. Chief Epperson's expert opinion was that the level of force used was not justified due to the circumstances.”
Three things:
I assume that this recitation of the Chief’s comments is accurate.
There likely is a formal report with more information (maybe even elements that are favorable to Officer Lunsford) or that information will be gathered during pretrial interviews.
His conclusion is objectively wrong.
Dr. Michael D. White
The Professor
Dr. Michael D. White is a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University (ASU) as well as the Associate Director of ASU’s Center fo Violence Prevention and Community Safety. He also worked as a deputy sheriff in Northampton County, Pennsylvania from 1992-1993.
Dr. White argued that the use of deadly force was not reasonable because, in his opinion, Mr. Eze did not pose a deadly threat to police officers.
The evidence to back up his opinion can be summed up like this - no police officer has ever been murdered by a suspect while under the power of a Taser and therefore, no police officer should perceive this as a deadly threat.
That’s it.
Allow me to Retort
Chief
Chief Epperson evaluated this use of force from the vantage point of a person sitting in a quiet room watching a movie - miles away from danger. Enjoying the luxury that comes with looking at different camera angles and zooming into the interesting parts.
The New Mexico Department of Public Safety (NMDPS) Policies and Procedures states that the "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.
And that is all that we are asking. To ask the question,
“When Mr. Eze gained possession of the Taser - would a reasonable officer believe that a deadly threat is present.”
The Chief never stated that a Taser in the hands of a resistant subject - is not a deadly threat. That is extremely relevant. Why not address that issue?
The Chief specifically mentioned that the Taser was not pointed at either officer. If it was - would that change his opinion? Does an officer have to wait for a Taser to be pointed at them before they are allowed to respond? If so, is that also true for a firearm? And, where can officers find training, policy, or case law that reflects this idea?
Nowhere. And we all know it.
*How many use of force “experts” did the AGs Office have to go through before they found one willing to sign onto this nonsense?
Professor
As for Dr. White’s evidence to back up his opinion - which was - since he could not find an example of this occurring, therefore, no police officer should perceive it as a possible deadly threat.
This lacks the seriousness that I would expect from an academic and borders on juvenile trolling.
This theory for use of force cannot be found in any law, policy, or training. And for good reason - it’s absurd.
Let’s apply the “Dr. White doctrine” to other scenarios and see if it the logic holds:
No police officer in Florida has ever been eaten by an alligator on duty, so police officers should not perceive any danger in jumping into a swamp full of alligators.
No police officer has ever been murdered on duty by a suspect who bashed them in the head with a left-handed hockey stick, so if a suspect charges an officer with a left-handed hockey stick - no police officer should perceive a deadly threat.
You get the point.
It also appears that Dr. White expects police officers to know all of these statistics and be able to compute them in an instant - while they are fighting with a 6’4’’ maniac who is high on methamphetamine grabbing at their weapons. Brilliant.
From Calibre Press (one of the most trusted national law enforcement training groups), “If the man gets a hold of the TASER, there is potential to incapacitate the officer long enough to flee. But there is also the potential, during that incapacitation, that the suspect would grab the officer’s firearm and use its lethality against the officer.”
Not Alone
This is not the only case where a suspect successfully gained possession of an officer’s Taser while resisting arrest and the officer subsequently responded with deadly force.
Rayshard Brooks, 2020, Atlanta, GA.
Brooks overpowered two officers during a lawful arrest and grabbed a Taser.
Brooks was running away and pointed the Taser behind him at Officer Rolfe.
Officer Rolfe responded with deadly force.
Officer Rolfe was initially charged and then the charges were dropped. The DA calling the use of force “reasonable”.
Patrick Lyoya, 2022, Grand Rapids, MI.
Lyoya resisted a lawful arrest and was able to wrestle the Taser away from Officer Schurr.
Officer Schurr responded with deadly force in a very similar manner to Officer Lunsford.
Officer Schurr is currently facing 2nd degree murder charges.
Nearly all police officers believe that a Taser poses an obvious deadly threat (for the reasons previously explained) - as that is what police officers are taught in the police academy and in use of force trainings. There is zero official police training that would instruct a police officer to not view this as a deadly threat.
And, that’s where the heartache is. The State is teaching cops to view this exact scenario as a deadly threat - then prosecuting them when they follow that training. It’s a twisted game of gaslighting our police officers.
Media
I will be appearing on the Search Warrant podcast with Officer Lunsford’s wife (Lacy Lunsford) on January 22, 2025.
Please follow the podcast, look out for the episode, and share it widely to get the word out.
Final Thoughts
Police officers are really good at following directions. Write a policy, train them how to follow it, and the vast majority of the time - they will without issue.
How are police officers trained to respond when an offender gains possession of their Taser and there is a reasonable belief that they will use it against them?
For this issue - we have the policy, we have the training, and then we have the prosecution for when an officer follows the State sanctioned instruction.
This is not hyperbole as the Las Cruces Police Department determined that Officer Lunsford did not violate the use of force policy. So, how is it possible that he violated the law?
Prosecutors around the nation have determined that officers’ actions in similar cases were reasonable and all available police training informs officers that this exact scenario - poses a deadly threat.
This use of deadly force by Officer Lunsford in this instance was objectively reasonable. The charges should be dismissed.
**Please consider donating to Brad’s legal defense
I think you know by now that I agree with everything you said here regarding this incident. While I was aware of the opinion of the retired police chief and I agree with you there as well, I was not aware of this so-called expert professor. I mean, with an entire year as a police officer he's got to know everything there is to know about policing and I'm certain he experienced every type of critical incident that can be experienced by a police officer in the entire year that he did the job.
In seriousness, it's so-called experts like the retired Chief and this professor, paid Shills who will say whatever they're asked to say, or they're sought out specifically by prosecutors who know that they've never seen a police use of force that they like and will come up with all kinds of b******* to say that it was not justified.
I'll never quite understand how one of these so-called experts can give a professional opinion that can adversely affect an officer's career and Future when they get to review that incident from the comfort of their own couch and as you pointed out, using video that's been forensically examined and includes freeze frames and zooms, all types of things that these officers did not have the luxury of observing. What exactly don't they understand about totality of circumstances and "at that exact moment" ?
This is so obviously a persecution and not a prosecution that quite frankly it's sickening. When one of the largest news media organizations in the world, CNN has a headline regarding this incident that says "police shoot black man who stole beer" , you know what the motivation to prosecute these officers truly is.
My Question to you is How Much was Mr Epperson " fee" to testify?
This is what a travesty of Justice looks like