United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Family Says Killer Cop Relaxed at Hooters Afterward
Source:
From The Trenches/Courthouse News
URL Source: http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.c ... ed-at-hooters-afterward/178704
Published: Dec 27, 2016
Author: Andrew Midkiff
Post Date: 2016-12-27 09:44:07 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 13698
Comments: 69
ALBUQUERQUE (CN) – After killing their daughter, with his body camera off, and making up a story that the teenager was armed, an Albuquerque cop “relaxed” by going to Hooters, the teen’s parents say in a lawsuit against the city and officer. Former police Officer Jeremy Dear was pursuing Mary Hawkes in April 2014 after finding her cellphone in a stolen truck. He saw her on the street at about 5 a.m. and pursued her on foot, as part of a seven-member team of officers, according to the Dec. 20 lawsuit in Bernalillo County Court. Dear says that when he caught up to the teen, she put a gun in his face, giving him cause to shoot her to death. But her family says she had no gun. They describe Dear as a “wolf … running with a pack, all in uniform.” In the 10 months before he killed 19-year-old Mary, despite a standing order to record each citizen contact with his lapel camera, Dear “violated this order to record citizen contacts literally hundreds of times before he took a human life,” they say in the complaint. The only defendants are the city and Dear, but the Hawkes say the uniformed “pack” of officers contributed to and covered up their daughter’s death. “Each officer who saw Mary S. Hawkes running from them failed to record her flight,” the complaint states. “They failed to capture or else subsequently destroyed defendant Officer Jeremy Dear’s gunning down of her on their respective lapel cameras. As long as the video and audio recordings did not exist they knew defendant Officer Jeremy Dear would be presumptively believed by their chain of command and exonerated. Thus, in the immediate aftermath of her killing, defendant Officer Jeremy Dear and Sgt. Maurer had one care: his lapel camera. Sgt. Brian Maurer, on scene, ordered him to turn it off, while his partner Sonny Molina assured him with two words: ‘Good shot.’” The family says that Dear and Molina had “perfected gaming the broken [police] department,” and that Dear’s “gratuitous killing” of Mary Hawkes “was the culmination of his bromance with fellow Officer Sonny Molina. Together, these officers created danger that would otherwise not have existed; used unwarranted, brutal force against Mary S. Hawkes, causing her death, and then relaxed after killing her by going first to Hooters restaurant and then to a ‘hole-in-the-wall’ for a Chinese massage.” Dear, who said his lapel camera had become unplugged during the shooting, was fired later that year. Police Chief Gorden Eden told the press that Dear demonstrated “a clear case of repeated insubordination and untruthfulness,” and had repeatedly failed to turn on his body camera. The Hawkes challenge the official story of the killing in numerous ways in the 43-page lawsuit, with an additional 14 pages of exhibits. They say that though Dear claimed Mary was holding a gun, the gun found at the scene had no DNA or fingerprints on it, and body cam footage from another officer appears to show that her body was moved between frames. “In frame 516, Mary S. Hawkes’ location appears to have moved a number of feet, as the blood evidence is clearly visible in the camera but the body of Mary S. Hawkes is no longer immediately adjacent to the blood and is no longer visible in the video,” the complaint states. Dear repeatedly refused to answer questions in a July 19 deposition taken by the family’s attorney, citing the Fifth Amendment. Thirty-five pages of the deposition are attached as an exhibit to the complaint, four deposition pages per page in the complaint. Among the questions Dear refused to answer was why none of the bullet wounds were on the front of Mary’s body. Mary was killed 11 days after the Department of Justice released a scorching report about unnecessary killings by Albuquerque police. And two weeks ago, the Department of Justice said it is investigating whether Albuquerque police alter video cam evidence. The Hawkes family sued the police department in March for wrongful death, spoliation of evidence, negligent hiring, training and supervision, unreasonable seizure and warrantless arrest and unconstitutional use of force. In the new complaint, they seek damages for deprivation of civil rights. In October this year, the police department’s former custodian or records, Reynaldo Chavez, said in an affidavit that the Hawkes’ video, among others, had been altered, and that records were routinely “bleached” or deleted during his time on the force. “Reynaldo Chavez attests that the city’s motivation was twofold,” the Hawkes family says in the new lawsuit. “The city wanted to appear to be following Chief Eden’s edict to record all encounters with civilians on the one hand, while, at the same time, preventing any damaging recordings from reaching the public.” The family claims that Deputy City Attorney Kathy Levy told Chavez to “deny, withhold, obstruct, conceal, or even destroy records,” at times, and would tell him “there are items we just will not release and we will just pay the fines or lawsuits.” Chavez also was told to find creative ways to dodge records requests, to “‘baffle’ or frustrate the requestor or otherwise burden them,” according to the complaint. The Albuquerque Police Department did not respond to a request for comment. The family seeks punitive damages for wrongful death, pain and suffering, deprivation of civil rights resulting in death, and costs of suit. They are represented by Shannon Kennedy with Kennedy, Kennedy, and Ives, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-3) not displayed.
.
.
.
#4. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
Police Chief Gorden Eden told the press that Dear demonstrated “a clear case of repeated insubordination and untruthfulness,” and had repeatedly failed to turn on his body camera. " " In October this year, the police department’s former custodian or records, Reynaldo Chavez, said in an affidavit that the Hawkes’ video, among others, had been altered, and that records were routinely “bleached” or deleted during his time on the force. " Interesting, noteworthy comments !!! Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
When you consider all the other evidence of criminal cover-up, altering, "bleaching" and removing video as verified by the department video custodian and the fact that even the chief has stated that this rogue cop had been warned several times before NOT to turn off his body cam and in fact the chief went as far as to say that Dear demonstrated “a clear case of repeated insubordination and untruthfulness”, it's pretty certain that the weapon was a "throw-down". What's a throw-down you ask? Look it up. Use to also be called a " drop gun ", usually wiped good, and kept in a zip lock until needed. Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Did they find an empty zip lock bag at the scene? If they didn't then -- using doper logic -- that proves there was no drop gun.
What's a throw-down you ask? What does “pretty certain” mean, I ask. Look it up. Nah, here….I did it for you. The phase “pretty certain” is used when “engaged in, expressing, or based on conjecture rather than knowledge.” I don’t deal in “conjecture” and pass judgment on “speculation” like you do, CT freak….I rather deal only in “knowledge.”
You supported "yukon" and blamed EVERYONE for the infamous, "Yukon used the wrong link" publick confession to Salley. So, you are a goddamned liar.
No. It would mean that whoever did the drop, or threw it down, was smart enough to take the bag with them when they left the scene. For your edification, keeping it in the bag until left at the scene is to ensure no third party left fingerprints on the weapon. If you cap some one, you do not want to leave YOUR fingerprints on the weapon that the capped party supposedly pulled on you, which would justify you capping them. Gee! Pretty elementary really! Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
The chief of police made the statement that Dear demonstrated “a clear case of repeated insubordination and untruthfulness,” and had repeatedly failed to turn on his body camera. The fact that the cop's own boss won't even back him up on this tells me that Dear had a history of turning off his camera. And you don't find that credible. How do you explain this: “In frame 516, Mary S. Hawkes’ location appears to have moved a number of feet, as the blood evidence is clearly visible in the camera but the body of Mary S. Hawkes is no longer immediately adjacent to the blood and is no longer visible in the video,” In addition, the police department’s former custodian or records, Reynaldo Chavez, said in an affidavit that the Hawkes’ video, among others, had been altered, and that records were routinely “bleached” or deleted during his time on the force. That you find none of this points to a drop gun being placed at the scene only displays your lack of common sense and your continual support for corrupt, criminal cops. CT freak… Still using that discredited CIA term, eh? You really are quite predictable. Your words here are just empty words that do nothing to confirm the weapon found was a throw down. You are groveling to find and show flimsy support for a personal opinion you fail to support. Therefore, the FACT that remains after reading your empty words is that you used the phrase “pretty certain” to ”express YOUR PERSONAL conjecture and speculation.” I don’t deal in conjectures and speculation like you. Let me know when you have proof positive the weapon was a throw down. Until then, I am finished here …
I'd bet money on it. The thing about you copsucker is that you delusionally believe that cops only use drop guns in the movies. More's the pity. Aha! So when the cops raid a drug house and find no drugs, that doesn't necessarily mean the residents are innocent. It just means the drugs may have been moved.
Whitey, I agree with you on a lot of things, but Your dream here is just bull shit. You are trying real hard to justify this situation but your reasoning is very flawed. If you were on a witness stand, and you spouted such bullshit, most likely the judge would jack your ass real good. Sorry, you are not going to get promoted from the cruiser washing job to meter maid with this bull shit. Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Me? I'd love to hear you testify in front of the judge that the gun was a throw-down when you have ZERO evidence.
And I am sure you have valid evidence that it was not, such as the victims fingerprints on the weapon. Right ? Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
You expect me to prove a negative? Nice try. As for the lack of fingerprints ... "According to the report, APD had previously looked into that gun and traced it to a man who had exchanged Facebook messages with Hawkes. In another message, the report said someone else accused Hawkes of stealing a pistol."
Your [Deckard] words here are just empty words that do nothing to confirm the weapon found was a throw down. You are groveling to find and show flimsy support for a personal opinion you fail to support. Therefore, the FACT that remains after reading your empty words is that you used the phrase “pretty certain” to ”express YOUR PERSONAL conjecture and speculation.” I don’t deal in conjectures and speculation like you. Let me know when you have proof positive the weapon was a throw down. Until then, I am finished here … Gatlin posted on 2016-12-28 8:05:45 ET Reply Trace Private Reply you used the phrase “pretty certain” I'd bet money on it [being a throw down]. The thing about you copsucker is that you delusionally believe that cops only use drop guns in the movies. More's the pity. Deckard posted on 2016-12-28 8:36:56 ET Reply Trace Private Reply […] A sergeant in the internal affairs bureau found the gun had originally been purchased by an Albuquerque man in 1998. That man later sold the gun and lost the receipt. The police reports state that the serial number from the gun had been run through a national criminal information database as part of a separate investigation by APD’s Crimes Against Children Unit. That search traced the gun back to a Michael Gaddy of Albuquerque. Gaddy was Facebook friends with Hawkes and had asked her to come to his house a week before Hawkes was shot. Hawkes also had messages on her Facebook account from Erik Hawke, who accused Hawkes of stealing a “piece” from his friend. “Due to the fact that both Erik Hawke and Michael Gaddy are Facebook ‘friends’ with Mary Hawkes, it would appear there is evidence to suffice the origin of the .32 caliber firearm in Mary Hawkes’ possession on the evening,” APD Detective Matt Caplan wrote in a police report that has been submitted to the District Attorney’s Office. […] https://www.abqjournal.com/823934/despite-no-prints-gun- linked-to-hawkes.html . I am going to turn your statement around on you: Oh, BTW….there was no mention of a clear plastic zip lock bag in the report …
Well, it isn’t and you can give up your amateur sleuthing to consider yourself an expert in criminology by watching a few television programs. Here’s why: They don't have fingerprints/DNA so the case must be dismissed … This myth has been around for decades but it has become more prevalent lately thanks to television programs like CSI-Miami. For example, let us imagine that a person is charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm because the police found a pistol in the closet of the bedroom he shares with his girlfriend. After the police seize the weapon they will almost always dust the weapon for fingerprints and, lately, they will also swab the weapon for DNA. In nearly every case there will be no fingerprints nor will there be DNA found on the weapon. This is because fingerprints are left only on hard, shiny surfaces. The only real hard and shiny surface on a pistol is the barrel. A pistol is rarely picked up by the barrel. Likewise, DNA is found only biological tissue. Rarely is enough biological tissue left on the handle of a pistol to permit an analysis to be performed. Therefore, the forensic analysis from the crime laboratory will likely be negative. The defendant [and ill-advised uninformed cop-haters trying to berate the police and protect criminals] then convinces himself that there is no way he can be convicted. This is far from the truth. "Possession" under the criminal law is proved when it is shown that the item is question was located in an area that is under the "dominion and control" of the defendant and the defendant was aware of the item's presence. Clearly, it is not required that the state prove that the pistol was, at some point, in the defendant's hand in order to prove "possession." In our example, a bedroom closet is certainly an area that is within the defendant's dominion and control. All that is left is for the state to prove that the defendant knew that the pistol was in the closet. This might be done many ways- including testimony from the officers that the pistol was in plain view on the shelf of the closet and the defendant's clothing was also found in that same closet (permitting the inference that the defendant went into the closet frequently and had to have seen the pistol there on the shelf). In any event, once the state has got past the preliminary hearing where they established probable cause, there is no way to short-circuit the process. Whereas a weak civil case might be short-circuited by a motion for summary judgment there is no procedural equivalent in a criminal case. The only way to test the sufficiency of the state's evidence is to put the case before the jury. Do not make poor decisions about your case simply because the State lacks forensic evidence. […] By: Attorney Jeffrey W. Jensen
A good competent criminal investigation requires logical curiosity, so that all questions be answered truthfully, and logically. You cannot dismiss a possibility simply because you do not like the answer. You have to accept the truth So, if the victim, as claimed, pointed a pistol at the officer, what explanation is there for a lack of her fingerprints on the pistol? Are you going to suggest that after she was shot, before she died, that she wiped her prints off of the pistol? Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
You gotta love the picture of the deceased. The loving family couldn't find a picture of the criminal twat without her PITBULL in the picture. LMAO
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You are plucking freak/ we know it is not all your personnel fault.
Lay off the booze that causes you to abuse the family... and act like a Ferguson shitbird here. It's PHUCKING... not PLUCKING. Dumb shit. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Of course, that must be why the cops turned off their cameras and the department has a long-standing policy of tampering with, deleting and/or "bleaching" video evidence. Even the chief of police admits that: Police Chief Gorden Eden told the press that Dear demonstrated “a clear case of repeated insubordination and untruthfulness,” and had repeatedly failed to turn on his body camera. Sorry sport, this was a murder of an unarmed woman committed by two cops (likely homosexual) who attempted to cover up their crime by disabling their cameras. I have no idea. What explanation do you have for the FACT that the so called "throw down" handgun found next to her body was traced to a man who had exchanged Facebook messages with her? You ignore the facts and focus on unanswered questions.
Here's one of the meth head without the dog:
Yep he did. And he's ready to convict on just that. This is despite the fact that the so-called "throw down" handgun found next to her body was traced to a man who had exchanged Facebook messages with her. I'd love to hear dickwad's explanation.
Turned off? I thought he said the camera accidentally became unplugged. Hmmmm. Let me check the article. Ah. Here it is: "Dear, who said his lapel camera had become unplugged during the shooting ..."
The gun was the one found by Hawkes after she was shot by the cop. You may take time, if you like, to slowly read all this again, for at least the third time, since you are having great difficulty dealing with and accepting it. After doing that, you will need to come to grips with the factuality that the trace evidence in the possession of the gun carried by Hawkes has completely disproven your wild “throw down” conjecture. Give it up. And, you also need to stop watching too many CSI television shows so that you will quit grasping at straws trying to look for something that is not there to protect a criminal. However, if you choose to do so….you can continue with your CRAZY accusations as long as you want to. But all you will be doing is to continue to show your ignorance and make more of an ass of yourself. You are so predictable, in that is probably what you will continue to do ...
Yep he sure did say that. His past history (according to the Chief of Police) would indicate that the cop is....what's that word again? Oh right - LYING. Dear, who said his lapel camera had become unplugged during the shooting, was fired later that year. Police Chief Gorden Eden told the press that Dear demonstrated “a clear case of repeated insubordination and untruthfulness,” and had repeatedly failed to turn on his body camera. I'm not the only one calling him a lar apparently. You believe the Chief and yet you will not believe Dear? Why is that? What evidence can you show that the Chief was not also [“what is that word”] LYING….since you accuse Dear of lying?
For something else, apparently. Otherwise he would have been fired right away. But you want to tie the two together. Just like you want to believe the gun was a throw down. Next time work with some facts, rather than your endless speculation.
Good point! The Chief is also a cop. A big cop. Meaning he's an even bigger liar. Yet douchbag believes him. Why is that?
For something else, apparently. Otherwise he would have been fired right away. But you want to tie the two together. Just like you want to believe the gun was a throw down. The article is misleading….typical yellow journalism. The city’s personnel board voted 3-2 on November 2015 in favor of giving Jeremy Dear his job back with the Albuquerque Police Department. He was reinstated in November 2015 … Next time work with some facts, rather than your endless speculation. Yea, sure he will….LOL.
You two clowns are hilarious! Yeah - the chief was lying, sure. Yeah, that's why Dear was fired, the mean cheefie made up lies about him. "was fired later that year." For something else, apparently. Otherwise he would have been fired right away. I have no doubt that you actually believe that. More's the pity. For something else, apparently. Otherwise he would have been fired right away. But you want to tie the two together. I have no doubt that you actually believe that. He, misterwhite, said “apparently” you dumb ass. It is more than “apparent” that Dear was not fired for the incident here. It is a obvious fact because the firing mentioned in the article occurred LAST YEAR. Damn yellow journalism….always trying to mislead by twisting facts to fit their agenda.
Good point! The Chief is also a cop. A big cop. Meaning he's an even bigger liar. Yet douchbag believes him. Why is that? Yea, douchbag....WHY do you believe the Chief and not Dear?
Well, this thread has made one thing clear, submissive copsuckers with a psychological fetish for authority will go to any length to defend the egregious actions of their "heroes".
Yes it has.
First: You said that Dear was fired for “lying.” It is obvious that the city’s personnel board did not agree with you or the Chief that Dear was lying when they voted in favor of giving Jeremy Dear his job back with the APD. Not even the APD spokeswoman, Celina Espinoza, agrees with you and the Chief when said the reason Officer Dear was fired “had little to do with the issue of lapel camera usage.”
"The truth does not need to be defended."
Yes it has. Yep, it surely has ...
I have no idea. Nor do I see the relevance. You ignore unanswered questions, that might punch holes in your theory that it was a justified shooting. Simply because you are such a cop sucker you want to white wash them. For example, the fact that the gun she " allegedly " pointed at the cop did not have fingerprints on it, clearly indicates that it was planted. Yet you are unconcerned about that unexplained little fact. You are not Columbo material. Look, I am NOT wanting to defend a criminal. But I do not want to defend a dirty cop. This case sounds like a dirty deal. Whether she was a meth head or not, I do not believe that cops are "above the law". If that attitude is allowed to prevail, our society will break down. Then we will have widespread vigilante justice, and surviving family will commit acts of retribution. No one here, myself, you, or anyone else liked or approved when Cops were assassinated ( Dallas, New York, Pittsburgh, etc, etc ). Well, if cops act above the law, you will get a lot more of that. We all know, that there are dirty cops. I still think it is a small percentage, but it is growing. I do know good cops are frustrated when some slick talking lawyer gets a dick head judge to let a scumbag off the hook. But cops being above the law is not the answer. Like the old saying: Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. You may be fine with society breaking down, but I am not. I do not want predators roaming the streets. My wife, & my children still live & function in this society. I support the police & the job they are sworn to do, to protect my family & society, and maintain order. But I do not support police that sees everyone without a badge to be the enemy. If you do not understand that, then it is good that they keep you out back washing cruisers. I am done here. Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Comments (45 - 69) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest" Police Chief Gorden Eden told the press that Dear demonstrated “a clear case of repeated insubordination and untruthfulness,” and had repeatedly failed to turn on his body camera. " " Dear, who said his lapel camera had become unplugged during the shooting, was fired later that year.
#5. To: Gatlin (#3)
It was ONLY the Hawkes family who said “the gun found at the scene had no DNA or fingerprints on it.”
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#6. To: Deckard (#5)
" What's a throw-down you ask? "
#7. To: Stoner (#6)
"... usually wiped good, and kept in a zip lock until needed."
#8. To: Deckard (#5)
(Edited)
…it's pretty certain that the weapon was a "throw-down".
Look it up. The word “certain” means that something is “known for sure; established beyond doubt.”
#9. To: Gatlin (#8)
I don’t deal in “conjecture” and pass judgment on “speculation” like you do, CT freak….I rather deal only in “knowledge.”
#10. To: misterwhite (#7)
" Did they find an empty zip lock bag at the scene? If they didn't then -- using doper logic -- that proves there was no drop gun. "
#11. To: Gatlin (#8)
The phase “pretty certain” is used when “engaged in, expressing, or based on conjecture rather than knowledge.”
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#12. To: Deckard (#11)
#13. To: Gatlin (#12)
you used the phrase “pretty certain”
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#14. To: Stoner (#10)
"No. It would mean that whoever did the drop, or threw it down, was smart enough to take the bag with them when they left the scene."
#15. To: misterwhite (#14)
" So when the cops raid a drug house and find no drugs, that doesn't necessarily mean the residents are innocent. It just means the drugs may have been moved. "
#16. To: Stoner (#15)
"If you were on a witness stand, and you spouted such bullshit, most likely the judge would jack your ass real good."
#17. To: misterwhite (#16)
" I'd love to hear you testify in front of the judge that the gun was a throw-down when you have ZERO evidence. "
#18. To: Stoner (#17)
(Edited)
"And I am sure you have valid evidence that it was not, such as the victims fingerprints on the weapon. Right ?"
#19. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#13)
#12. To: Deckard (#11)
From the Albuquerque Journal #13. To: Gatlin (#12)
By Ryan Boetel / Journal Staff Writer
Published: Thursday, August 11th, 2016 at 12:05am Despite no fingerprints, police link gun to Hawkes
Deckard: “The thing about you copsucker is that you delusionally believe that cops only use drop guns in the movies.”
To that, I say: The thing about you criminal protecting Paultard libertarian assholes, is the YOU delusionally believe every piece of yellow journalism that supports your cop-hating agenda without ever doing any fact checking.
#20. To: Deckard, misterwhite, Pinguinite (#0)
(Edited)
They say that though Dear claimed Mary was holding a gun, the gun found at the scene had no DNA or fingerprints on it …
You highlighted this, Deckard, with boldness because you felt this would be a significant point. […]
http://w ww.jensendefense.com/articles/mythsaboutcriminallaw.html .
#21. To: misterwhite (#18)
" As for the lack of fingerprints ..."
#22. To: Stoner (#21)
#23. To: GrandIsland (#22)
#24. To: buckeroo (#23)
(Edited)
You are plucking frea
#25. To: Gatlin (#20)
Clearly, it is not required that the state prove that the pistol was, at some point, in the defendant's hand in order to prove "possession."
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#26. To: Stoner (#21)
"So, if the victim, as claimed, pointed a pistol at the officer, what explanation is there for a lack of her fingerprints on the pistol?"
#27. To: GrandIsland (#22)
(Edited)
"You gotta love the picture of the deceased. The loving family couldn't find a picture of the criminal twat without her PITBULL in the picture. LMAO"
#28. To: Gatlin (#19)
"you used the phrase “pretty certain”
#29. To: Deckard (#25)
"Of course, that must be why the cops turned off their cameras"
#30. To: Deckard (#25)
Sorry sport, this was a murder of an unarmed woman committed by two cops (likely homosexual) who attempted to cover up their crime by disabling their cameras.
Sorry sport, there was NO murder of an unarmed woman. Trace evidence shows that the gun was registered to Michael Gaddy of Albuquerque. Gaddy was a friend Hawkes and had asked her to come to his house a week before Hawkes was shot. Erik Hawke was also a friend and he accused Hawkes of stealing the gun from Gaddy.
Oh, ”the” gun?
#31. To: misterwhite (#29)
I thought he said the camera accidentally became unplugged.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#32. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#31)
#33. To: Deckard (#31)
"was fired later that year."
#34. To: Gatlin (#32)
"You believe the Chief and yet you will not believe Dear?"
#35. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#33)
"was fired later that year."
#36. To: misterwhite, Gatlin (#34)
The Chief is also a cop. A big cop. Meaning he's an even bigger liar.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#37. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#36)
(Edited)
"was fired later that year."
#38. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#34)
"You believe the Chief and yet you will not believe Dear?"
#39. To: Gatlin (#37)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#40. To: Deckard (#39)
"Well, this thread has made one thing clear ..."
#41. To: Deckard. misterwhite (#39)
(Edited)
Well, this thread has made one thing clear …
I would say more that one….at least two. The Chief fired Dear for what the Chief called “a clear case of repeated insubordination and untruthfulness.”
Secondly: The trace evidence in the possession of the gun carried by Hawkes has completely disproven your wild “throw down” conjecture.
"More's the pity."
#42. To: Deckard (#39)
... go to any length to defend ...
#43. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#40)
"Well, this thread has made one thing clear ..."
#44. To: misterwhite (#26)
" What explanation do you have for the FACT that the so called "throw down" handgun found next to her body was traced to a man who had exchanged Facebook messages with her?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]