Arizona cop lied about officer involved shooting

In January of 2018, Shawn Freeman told a compelling story during his first Officer Involved Shooting. Initially, he claimed that while on patrol, a man fired at him, prompting him to return fire as the suspect fled through a gap in a fence. Immediately after, Officer Freeman altered his narrative, stating that the suspect had aimed a gun at him, which led him to discharge his weapon in the suspect's direction before the individual escaped through the same fence.

The Mesa Police Officer, who initiated an extensive and costly citywide manhunt for a suspect who allegedly shot at or pointed a firearm at him, fabricated the entire event. During the incident, Officer Freeman provided a thorough description of the suspect and, without any prompting, identified him by name. This was particularly notable as Officer Freeman had previously encountered the suspect during his duties in the days prior and was aware of his residence in the nearby vicinity.

The Mesa Police Department quickly organized a massive operation to locate the suspect, deploying a helicopter for hours and reallocating officers from other districts, which left them unable to respond to calls for assistance from the public. The operation also utilized already overworked K-9 units, and detectives submitted false statements in affidavits to obtain arrest and search warrants. Even the US Marshals Task Force joined the pursuit. On the night of the shooting, several investigators were summoned to search for evidence of the suspect potentially being injured or killed by Officer Freemans shot. Despite extensive efforts, no ballistic evidence was found, a troubling trend that would later emerge in cases involving Officer Freeman.

The officers who accompanied Freeman during the incident did not observe any individual aiming a firearm at them. They even cautioned Freeman against joking about calling out a "998"—the code for officer-involved shootings— over the radio, as they believed they had heard the sound of a taser being deployed rather than a gunshot. If they were close enough to perceive the sound of a taser, they would have also been in a position to witness any potential threat posed by a suspect, yet none of them drew their weapons or returned fire at the alleged suspect besides Freeman.

Detectives tirelessly scoured the vicinity throughout the night and into the following day, looking for bullets, shell casings, and other pertinent evidence. However, the ballistic findings failed to corroborate Freeman's assertions, highlighting a pattern in investigations involving Officer Freeman where physical evidence consistently contradicted his claims. Over the years, Freeman and his colleagues have been heard joking about the incident, teasing him about "firing warning shots," indicating a shared understanding within the department that the shooting was not deemed justified.

A thorough independent investigation determined that the individual identified by Officer Freeman as the suspect in the Officer Involved Shooting was not present in the vicinity during the incident. Additional physical and ballistic evidence supports his innocence. Therefore, we have decided not to disclose his name in this article.

It appears that Officer Freeman may have fabricated the narrative in an attempt to evade accountability for the negligent discharge of his firearm, which posed a significant risk to nearby citizens and children sleeping in their homes that night. This incident raises serious concerns about the integrity of Officer Freeman.

Charges were unjustly filed against an individual who was not even in the area when the alleged shooting occurred. Upon discovering that a warrant had been issued for his arrest, the suspect voluntarily surrendered but was subsequently released from custody, although he still faced these unjustified charges. The unusual circumstances surrounding his quick release suggest that the District Attorney recognized inconsistencies in the case, as it is highly unusual for someone accused of threatening or shooting at a police officer to be granted such leniency. The swift release on bond further calls into question the validity of Officer Freeman's assertions.

In 2019, Freeman, who was a Sniper on the Mesa SWAT team, took part in executing a warrant in the same vicinity as the prior fabricated shooting incident. The individual Freeman had previously identified as a suspect in the Officer Involved Shooting was present at the scene, but he was not involved in the investigation. In a further act of aggression, Freeman shot this man in the abdomen with bean bag rounds at close range while the man had his hands raised and the only item within reach was a cell phone. As a result of this retaliatory action, the man now suffers from permanent disfiguring injuries. Freeman lacked any justification for using the bean bag rounds, since the man was complying with police orders, and he was aware that the specific bean bags were defective, often leading to serious injuries or even fatalities. Many law enforcement agencies, including the Phoenix Police Department, have ceased using these bean bags due to their unreliability as a less lethal option. Nevertheless, the Mesa Police Department continues to use these dangerous bean bags despite the overwhelming evidence against their safety.

What happened to Mesa Police Officer Shawn Freeman?

The Mesa Police Department deemed the shooting as "justified," a conclusion that was subsequently rubber stamped by the Maricopa County Attorney's office. This decision raises questions about accountability and the standards applied to law enforcement actions.

In contrast, a civilian who falsely reports a shooting could face serious legal repercussions, including charges for making a false emergency report, lying to police, endangerment, recklessly discharging a firearm, conspiracy, malicious prosecution and a host of other potential criminal charges. In addition, a civilian would likely be burdened with the obligation to reimburse the costs incurred by emergency services. However, Officer Freeman, who allegedly fabricated an officer-involved shooting and triggered a significant emergency response and unjustly prosecuted an innocent man, was instead promoted to the SWAT team. This disparity in consequences highlights a troubling double standard within the Mesa police department who demonstrates they are above the law.

The inaction of the Mesa Police Department, coupled with their justification of Freeman's actions, sends a troubling message about their stance on officer misconduct. By allowing a sworn officer to fabricate emergencies, mislead investigators, lie in official reports, intentionally prosecute the wrong person and significantly waste taxpayer resources without consequence, undermines public trust. The ramifications of Freeman's actions extend beyond his personal misconduct, as they have resulted in wrongful charges against an innocent man and significant financial burdens on the community.

The Mesa Police Department appears to be infected with misconduct and corruption from the lowest ranks all the way up to the Chief and command staff. If most Police Officers are good, only a few are bad, why arent the good ones holding the bad ones accountable?

Its every officers worst nightmare to get a call that a fellow officer has been shot or involved in a shooting. In many published cases where Cops fabricate shootings, they eventually confess to fabricating their story. In this case, theres an Officer with a track record of allegedly lying in police reports, falsifying or misrepresenting information on official documents and even repeatedly committing perjury by lying under oath. This is not an officer who will come clean or confess easily. In fact, when confronted about his alleged perjury, Officer Freeman doubled down telling even more egregious contradictory lies while deflecting and placing blame for his abusive conduct on victims.

The constant cycle of lawsuit settlements approved by Chief Cost and the City of Mesa should be a wake-up call about how the department is being managed. The citizens of Mesa Arizona who havent had any negative experience with Mesa Police yet should be outraged about where their tax dollars are being spent.

RELATED - Mesa pays $5.4M to settle 10 claims against cops

Some would say that nobody was shot, injured or died so no harm no foul, right? Not exactly.

It is widely acknowledged that in the event of a legitimate Officer Involved Shooting, particularly when a suspect has fired upon or threatened police with a firearm, a substantial response is warranted due to the clear threat posed to both law enforcement and the community at large. In such scenarios, the protocols and regulations governing police conduct may be overlooked, as the priority shifts to ensuring the safety of officers and the public. Conversely, when officers place themselves in harm's way and potentially jeopardize their careers in response to what turns out to be a fabricated emergency or a false report made by a fellow officer, it should provoke a strong sense of indignation among all police personnel and community members alike.

It is deeply troubling to consider the state of Officer Freeman's mental health, given that he managed to perpetuate a falsehood while receiving an outpouring of sympathy, empathy, and support from his colleagues, friends, family, and neighbors. This situation raises significant questions about the integrity of the officer involved.

The ramifications of this incident extend far beyond the individual case, as a man was wrongfully identified and charged with crimes related to a non-existent shooting. The involvement of the Maricopa County District Attorney and public defenders consumed critical legal resources that are urgently needed elsewhere, while a multi-agency response diverted law enforcement from addressing genuine public safety concerns. The issuance of search and arrest warrants based on misleading information not only violated the rights of innocent citizens but also placed undue strain on already overburdened detectives and judges.

Despite having multiple chances to be honest about his actions, Freeman opted to remain silent, allowing the City of Mesa to conduct an investigation for nearly a year. During this time, he garnered significant sympathy and support from colleagues, friends, and family. He misappropriated city and union resources intended for officers involved in critical incidents, and in a troubling turn of events, he permitted an innocent individual to accept a plea deal for a crime he did not commit, believing that the person's prior criminal history somehow justified this injustice.

Mesa Residents Demand Accountability: Investigating Police Misconduct and Officer Shawn Freeman's Actions

A coalition of concerned residents in Mesa, Arizona, is seeking clarity regarding the apparent lack of accountability for Mesa police officers who violate policies and the law. Among the officers under scrutiny, Officer Shawn Freeman has emerged as a particularly notable figure, prompting independent investigations into his conduct and raising significant concerns among the community.

The residents of Mesa are advocating for a comprehensive and impartial investigation of past allegations of misconduct against Officer Freeman, emphasizing the need for an external entity to oversee the investigation. There is a prevailing sentiment that the Mesa Police Department may not be a reliable source for such inquiries, given their history of overlooking unlawful behavior among their ranks. This pattern of protecting officers who engage in excessive force, coupled with a failure to discipline officers when repeated civil lawsuits are settled for the officer violating civil rights, has led to a lack of accountability that undermines public trust and raises serious questions about the integrity of the Mesa Police Department.

The implications of Officer Freeman's potential fabrication of an officer-involved shooting raise serious concerns about the integrity of his other statements. If there is a foundation of dishonesty in his reports, it is imperative that any convictions based on his accounts be thoroughly reevaluated and, if necessary, overturned. The credibility of law enforcement is paramount, and any erosion of trust must be addressed with urgency.

The City of Mesa's portrayal as a safe city with low crime rates stands in stark contrast to the frequency of officer-involved shootings and other critical incidents involving its police force. If the city truly embodies safety, the prevalence of these alarming events raises significant concerns. The normalization of such incidents in local news broadcasts suggests a troubling reality that cannot be overlooked, as it undermines the very foundation of community trust and safety that Mesa seeks to promote.

The liability of the Mesa Police Department has come under scrutiny, particularly concerning Officer Shawn Freeman's hiring process.

Initially, the Mesa Police Department disqualified Freeman from applying for a period of seven years due to his admission of abusing prescription medications that were not prescribed to him. Following this disqualification, Freeman found employment at the Corrections Corporation of America and the Bureau of Prisons while waiting for the seven-year period to elapse. During this time, he applied to numerous police departments across the country but was unsuccessful in securing a position with any of them.

During the hiring process, Freeman was required to undergo two psychological evaluations, as the first assessment yielded unfavorable results. It raises significant concerns that the department permitted him to retake the evaluation without any intervening psychiatric support after the initial unfavorable outcome.

Shortly after being hired by the Mesa Police Department, Freeman faced his first complaint from his former fiancée and her new partner, who reported concerns regarding his temper and allegations of domestic violence. The department allegedly instructed Freeman to cease all contact with his ex-fiancée, promising to address the situation. However, there was no formal investigation, and reports suggest that Freeman continued to see her for several years, demonstrating a disregard for the directive issued by the department. Additionally, during his time at the police academy, Freeman was involved in a serious relationship with another cadet, Kelsey Fortnam, who was later fired for fabricating a story about being stalked which the Mesa Police Department determined was a hoax. Freeman reportedly misled investigators about his involvement in the situation, raising further questions about his conduct and the department's oversight.

The Mesa Police Department has a concerning tendency to classify Internal Affairs complaints against its officers as "unfounded", even in instances where video evidence contradicts the officers' reports. This dangerous practice has been mentioned in over a dozen lawsuits settled against Mesa Police Officers in recent years.

It is essential that an impartial third party conducts a comprehensive investigation into the officer-involved shooting and all subsequent complaints filed against Officer Shawn Freeman by civilians and members of the Mesa Police Department. Adherence to established policies is crucial, and when violations occur, it is vital that those responsible are held accountable. The internal affairs personnel who neglected to investigate the allegations against Freeman must also face accountability, as their lack of action has contributed to ongoing misconduct committed by Freeman, including serious allegations ranging from failure to activate body cameras to severe use of force, unjustified shootings and potential cover-ups.

We respectfully request the reopening of this case, as there are clear deficiencies in the initial investigation and subsequent actions taken by Officer Freeman that indicate a troubling pattern of dishonesty. Such behavior not only undermines the integrity of the Mesa Police Department but also casts a shadow over the broader law enforcement community. It is imperative that these issues are addressed to restore public trust and ensure accountability.

Mesa Police Chief Ken Cost, Mayor John Giles, the Mesa City manager and all City Council members should be ashamed and embarrassed that this pattern of misconduct has been allowed to continue for so long. This officer is a representation of the City of Mesa and Arizona Law Enforcement, and has no respect for the Mesa Police Department, city leaders, Arizona laws or the Constitution of the United States of America.