Wrongly Convicted Former NM Officer Brad Lunsford Granted a New Trial, Released From Custody
Cop shot suspect who'd gained control of an officer's Taser.
Las Cruces, New Mexico City Hall (Photo: Wikimedia)
As if former Las Cruces (NM) police officer Brad Lunsford hasn’t faced enough evidence exposing the biased, cop-hating, Soros-funded prosecutors bent on persecution rather than prosecution, a major new development has emerged: a clear trial error that demands justice be corrected. An error that has led to a new trial and Ofc. Lunsford’s release from incarceration.
According to KFOX 14 News, “A judge has granted a new trial to former Las Cruces police officer Brad Lunsford, who was previously convicted of voluntary manslaughter for the 2022 shooting of Presley Eze.”
At the time of the incident, Ofc. Lunsford was a 10-year department veteran and a U.S. Army combat soldier who served multiple tours in Iraq. He is married with two young sons. (I interviewed his wife for the article linked below.)
The new trial was ordered due to improper juror replacement and demonstrated bias. No retrial date has been set, but Ofc. Lunsford has been released from custody. The judge specifically cited errors in jury assignment and handling.
The AG’s office strongly disagrees with the judge’s decision and insists the original conviction should stand, claiming the judge wrongly concluded that Ofc. Lunsford acted properly. The prosecution argue the officer never issued commands to the suspect.
As a retired officer, I can tell you what the AG should already know: in split-second, life-or-death situations, procedures don’t always follow your preferred script. The bad guy gets a vote.
Moreover, it appears Ofc. Lunsford’s partner did issue commands—which the suspect ignored. Would Ofc. Lunsford repeating the commands have satisfied the AG? Unlikely. It’s just another tactic to hammer the officer.
Critically, it appeared to me that Ofc. Lunsford fired at close range to avoid striking his partner positioned on the opposite side. Again, no script.
I’ll skim the key details here, but for deeper analysis, please read my full article on this case that I wrote for the National Police Association (NPA) in May 2024.
Before I proceed, allow me to preface how I write about “controversial” police shooting incidents. To paraphrase from my NPA article, First, I research the incident giving the officer the benefit of the doubt. Then, is there a moment, where I become unsure the officer acted correctly. If so, I don’t write about it. Not my job. Too many cop-critics are only too happy to do that.
I still support Officer Brad Lunsford’s actions as proper and reasonable for any officer given such circumstances.
Several facts stand out—allegedly:
• First, the suspect could have ended this encounter at any moment by simply cooperating (and prevented it by not stealing anything from the store).
• Second, critics claim the suspect was unarmed when shot—but he had seized an officer’s Taser and possessed it at the moment Ofc. Lunsford fired. That detail is crucial to understanding the perceived deadly threat (ever try shooting a gun with 50,000 - 150,000 volts of electricity coursing through your body?)
• Third, a knife was on the seat between the suspect’s knees; Ofc. Lunsford’s partner removed it during the struggle.
• Fourth, the suspect severely injured Ofc. Lunsford’s partner, reportedly causing a concussion, which limited his ability to assist, and required hospitalization.
In my original piece, I highlighted glaring discrepancies. I wrote: “This prosecution shows hallmarks typical of the anti-cop movement that targets cops, led by people like George Soros. These people don’t want to understand police work. The legacy media helps by making suspects appear saintly and officers villainous.”
I also noted that New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez—funded by Soros— “proactively took over efforts to prosecute Officer Lunsford when, as reported in the Huffington Post, the AG accused the Dona Ana County DA of obstructing the state’s investigation. Apparently, not agreeing with Torrez and following the law amounts to obstruction.”
Torrez appears to be establishing a dangerous new standard: unless the suspect points and then fires a weapon, officers cannot defend themselves—oh, and gives commands even if there’s no time to do so safely. That’s both ludicrous and life-threatening for law enforcement.
Bodycam and cellphone video clearly shows Ofc. Lunsford acting professionally, following the Use of Force Continuum just as he was trained—like something out of a department training video. Officers are explicitly taught that a Taser in an assailant’s hands constitutes a deadly threat justifying lethal force. That’s exactly what Ofc. Lunsford did.
As I quoted from Police Law News (PLN): “‘The frustrating thing is that police officers are trained by [the] state to classify the use of a Taser against them as a deadly threat. Then when an officer follows that training - that same state prosecutes them.’ This corrupt approach has become routine with anti-cop government officials and the MSM.”
This good man didn’t get up that morning with a desire to shoot anyone. He simply wanted to do his duty to keep his community safe and then return after his shift to his wife and children. When the suspect lied to officers about his identity, is seen on video refusing to cooperate, resisting arrest, and then grabbing an officer’s Taser, what do you think he planned to do with that weapon?
The suspect forced Ofc. Lunsford to make that life or death decision in a split-second to protect him and his partner. The cop made the decision to go home to his family after his shift rather than betting that the suspect wouldn’t shoot him with the Taser he was holding, take his gun, and shoot him and his partner. I wouldn’t take that bet either.
ARTICLES BY STEVE POMPER