United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: What if the Police Don’t Identify Themselves?
Source:
The Libertarian Institute
URL Source: https://libertarianinstitute.org/ar ... lice-dont-identify-themselves/
Published: Oct 21, 2019
Author: Peter R. Quinones
Post Date: 2019-10-22 19:02:25 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 22006
Comments: 83
Anyone who pays attention to cases involving police shootings, especially those that result in a fatality, has noticed that the narrative we first hear coming from the press soon changes. It is no different in the case of Atatiana Jefferson, who was gunned down through a closed window in her home on October 12, after a neighbor called police to report that her front door was ajar at 2AM. Fort Worth police showed up for a “wellness check.” They didn’t bother knocking, instead deciding to pull their guns and lurk around the outside of the house with high-lumen flashlights. Officer Aaron Dean and his partner opened a gate to the backyard, entered, and noticed a silhouette in the window that turned out to be Jefferson. He never identified himself as a police officer, yelled “show me your hands,” and a split second later fired the fatal shot. On Monday, 10/14/19, the Fort Worth PD announced that Dean had resigned from the police force before they could terminate his employment. The same day the report came that FWPD had filed murder charges against Dean. He was arrested, and soon after made the $200,000 bond. When the arrest warrant affidavit was released to the public, it was alleged that Jefferson’s un-named 8-year-old nephew, who was playing video games with her, claimed that Atatiana had noticed people lurking outside, picked up her gun and pointed it at the window. Granted, until an investigation is done, facts such as these are not expected to come out (not that it exonerates the officer). On Thursday, the 17th, the narrative surrounding the initial call to police was changed from that of a “wellness check,” to one of a “potential burglary.” Once again, anyone who has examined cases as such recognizes that this is often done in officer-involved shootings. The subject here should not be what the original intent of the call to law enforcement was made for, but whether a “mundane” has a right to protect their home from a “protected class member,” especially one who failed to identify himself as such. That there are people willing to defend the actions of officer Dean should come as no surprise. But is there a precedent for defending your home from officers who do not announce themselves? Ray Rosas On February 19, 2015, a Corpus Christi SWAT team led a “no-knock warrant” assault on the home of Ray Rosas. They had a search warrant and were looking to arrest his nephew, Santiago Garcia, who they suspected of selling drugs. Garcia was not in the home at the time. One would think that simple surveillance of the property could’ve informed police of this. Or they could’ve knocked and asked if he was in the dwelling. But no, Rosas suffered the typical, cowboy-type SWAT raid that police, on average do 50,000 times a year. When you compare that to 800 per annum in the 1980s, one should ask, why? The team threw a flash-bang grenade into the bedroom of the Rosas home, which was followed by three cops entering without announcing that they were, in fact, law enforcement. Rosas, whose home had been shot at in the past during drive-by shootings, believed he was being robbed, so he pulled out his gun and fired 15 times, striking three officers, all of whom survived the shooting. Rosas was arrested on attempted capital murder which, if convicted, carried a sentence of life in prison. During the trial, those charges were reduced to three counts of aggravated assault on a “public official.” Prosecutors argued that he should’ve known they were police because he had a surveillance camera outside his home. But Rosas had always maintained he did not know they were cops, telling cops as he was being arrested that he did not know they were cops. He also told jailers the same thing that night as they were booking him. After almost two years in jail, awaiting, and during his trial, the jury deliberated for only two hours and found him not guilty. The surveillance camera footage that allegedly captured the raid, was never released to the public. How the case of Ray Rosas relates to the shooting death by law enforcement of Atatiana Jefferson should be clear. In Rosas’ case, the police never announced who they were, threw an explosive device into his bedroom, and trespassed into his home. A Texas jury decided that the testimony of police was contradictory, and that Ray was defending his castle from what he thought were criminals. In Ft. Worth, the police officers never announced who they were and prowled around the outside of Jefferson’s home with flashlights, entering her fenced-in backyard. At 2 AM, it is not unreasonable to believe that anyone who owns a firearm would’ve done the same. Many on social media have proclaimed they would have done the exact thing that Atatiana did. Yet, there are those who seek to make the inane argument that if Dean is held responsible for this murder, “Who Would Ever be a Cop?” That is a great question ignoring the shooting. Using the precedent of the Rosas case, the conviction of Aaron Dean looks to be a slam dunk, although they differ in that the aggressor was unharmed and the peaceful inhabitant was slaughtered. The defense will no doubt rely on the Graham vs. Connor decision. Taking that into consideration, the prosecutor is now the one looking down the barrel.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Well, then they can blast those Negroes in their own homes for no reason and they can still rely on loathsome copsuckers with a homoerotic fixation for badged and costumed public safety employees to unrelentingly defending police just blasting anyone in their own homes for pretty much any reason. We have two prime examples of such repulsive posters still posting right here at LF. We used to have more of them but a couple of them recently stomped off in a huff because they couldn't convert the entire forum to their bizarre cop fetish.
[Thread article by Peter R. Quinones] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - That was crushed and he has started whoring the same shit, word for word, on a new street corner. Deckard/Matt Agorist/Peter R. Quinones/Tooconservative posted on 2019-10-22 20:03:07 ET https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=60338&Disp=75#C75 On Thursday, the 17th, the narrative surrounding the initial call to police was changed from that of a “wellness check,” to one of a “potential burglary.” Once again, anyone who has examined cases as such recognizes that this is often done in officer-involved shootings. Officer Who Shot Atatiana Jefferson Wasn't Asked to Do Wellness Check Despite Neighbor's Request Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=60338&Disp=97#C97 Matt. This is just bullshit. There was never any mention of a wellness check. On Saturday, 12 Oct 2019, the charge sheet reflected burglary. On Monday, 14 Oct 2019, the affidavit in support of the arrest warrant reflected open structure. Matt, I have the arrest warrant and affidavit posted with the article. Police statements indicate they started calling it an open structure call on Saturday, 12 Oct 2019. They definitely documented it as an open structure call by Monday, 14 Oct 2019. The TFTP incompetent bullshit is strong with this one. Two. Matt and Matt, is this your impersonation of Mr. ROBOT? - - - - - - - - - - https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=60338&Disp=100#C100 Matt, It was a burglary on the Oct. 12 call log, and it was an open structure on the subsequent press release of 12 Oct. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGsbrSzXUAMdNna.jpg PRESS RELEASE For Immediate Release Oct. 12, 2019 FORT WORTH, Texas — Serving the public transparently and openly during good events and difficult events is a prerequisite to any professional police department. The Fort Worth Police Department is committed to ensuring the public is aware of major police incidents, especially officer involved shootings, and that details available arc released as quickly as possible given the gravity of the circumstances. On Saturday. Oct. 12, 2019, the Fort Worth Police Department responded to a call for service that resulted in the loss of a life and all evidence, witness statements, body camera footage, and any other available evidence is being collected and collated to ultimately be presented to the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office to determine the final outcome. Near 02:25 a.m.. Fort Worth Police Central Division officers responded to an Open Structure call for service in the 1200 block of E. Allen Ave. Details stated the front door to the residence was open. Responding officers searched the perimeter of the house and observed a person standing inside the residence near a window. Perceiving a threat the officer drew his duty weapon and fired one shot striking the person inside the residence. Officers entered the residence locating the individual and a firearm and began providing emergency medical care. The individual, a black female, who resides at the residence succumbed to her injuries and was pronounced deceased on the scene. The officer, a white male who has been with the department since April of 2018. has been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome the critical police incident investigation. The Fort Worth Police Major Case unit. Internal Affairs unit and the Tarrant County Criminal District Attorney’s Law Enforcement Incident Team were notified and made lhe scene to conduct their aspect of the investigation to ensure all information and evidence was captured and preserved. The Fort Worth Police Department is releasing available body camera footage to provide transparent and relevant information to the public as we arc allowed within the confines of the Public Information Act and forthcoming investigation. Camera footage inside the residence is not able to be released based on Public Information laws. The Fort Worth Police Department shares the deep concerns of the public and is committed to completing an extremely thorough investigation of this critical police incident to its resolution. As this investigation continues, information will be forthcoming in as timely a manner as possible. @fortworthpd
https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=60338&Disp=96#C96 [nolu chan #65] [Tooconservative #49] It is not. You're a piss-poor armchair lawyer. Maybe you should leave that end of it to nolu. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition Quote your imaginary lawbook. - - - - - - - - - - [Tooconservative #73] Quote your imaginary lawbook. Dear God, are you under the impression that Black's Law Dictionary constitutes the statutes of the state of Texas or the city of Fort Worth or the official policies of the Fort Worth PD? My opinion of your credibility on laws is plummeting. Matt, you are a unmitigated asshole. First, you were too dumb, stupid, or lazy to check or quote whatever imaginary Texas Statute that you fantacize is in support of your bullshit at #49. You huff and puff, but you offer nothing to support your bullshit at #49 with more bullshit at #73, which descended lower at #74. As with #49 and #73, you pulled that out of your ass, not out of a lawbook or statute. The Texas criminal statute on assault provides: (a) A person commits an offense if the person: [...] (2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or [...] (b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed against: (1) a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant; [...] (d) For purposes of Subsection (b), the actor is presumed to have known the person assaulted was a public servant, a security officer, or emergency services personnel if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person's employment as a public servant or status as a security officer or emergency services personnel. [...] Matt, what is the source of your bullshit? Your ass?
The subject here should not be what the original intent of the call to law enforcement was made for, but whether a “mundane” has a right to protect their home from a “protected class member,” especially one who failed to identify himself as such. That there are people (here) willing to defend the actions of officer Dean should come as no surprise.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person: [...] (2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or [...] (b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed against: (1) a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant; [...] (d) For purposes of Subsection (b), the actor is presumed to have known the person assaulted was a public servant, a security officer, or emergency services personnel if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person's employment as a public servant or status as a security officer or emergency services personnel. [...] CAN YOU SEE IT NOW???
How could the victim see a badge in the dark? How could she see a black uniform? It appears to me that Fort Worth PD has flat black uniforms for daily patrol duties. They seem to have navy blue uniforms for dress occasions and ceremonies. And their cops on bikes and horses also seem to wear dark navy uniforms for everyday patrol duties. In the dark of night in an unlighted backyard, there is no difference between a dark navy uniform and a black uniform. And badges don't glow in the dark. And nothing can be seen when someone outside in the dark is pointing a flashlight in your eyes while screaming for no more than 1.43333 seconds before blasting you through your bedroom window. The law only protects cops who have shown their badge and their uniform. And Dean/Larch chose not to present their badges/uniforms. I wouldn't be surprised if this ends Larch's career in the PD. As senior officer, she should have insisted that they identify themselves to the home's residents. I'm pretty sure it will play out that way.
Well Matt, nolu sham seems to believe that Atatiana Jefferson should have "presumed" that it was Dean in her backyard and not a burglar. Even though Dean failed on several occasions to announce himself as the police and was pointing a light directly into the window making it impossible for her to see who it was outside, Atatiana should have possessed psychic ability or some such nonsense to determine that it was a cop in her yard. After all, cops are well-known for prowling around people's yards and snooping in windows at zero-dark-thirty, right? The message from nolu (and whitey) is that the homeowner is not legally allowed to protect their home with a gun, because it might be the police and not a bad guy outside.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. But no one reaches for their gun if they think there is a cop outside. At least no one does if they're not some gangbanger 3-time loser. nolu's probably off abusing himself with some old CHIPs photos and a set of handcuffs or something, muttering "Oh, yeah, do it harder, Matt!"
Matt, how would a blind or severely vision-impaired person see a uniform and badge in the light or the dark? Matt, do you view it as perfectly acceptable and lawful for a blind person to wave a loaded gun about, pointing it at someone? The Texas law makes one responsible for being able to see what they are aiming at. Under Texas statute law, " (a) A person commits an offense if the person: ... intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed against: (1) a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant; ... (d) For purposes of Subsection (b), the actor is presumed to have known the person assaulted was a public servant, a security officer, or emergency services personnel if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person's employment as a public servant or status as a security officer or emergency services personnel." The Texas statute clearly states the law. Whatever you aim your gun at, you are responsible for knowing what you are aiming at. If you aim at an officer in a distinctive uniform or with a displayed badge, you are responsible and are presumed, under the law, to have known that the person was a public servant, a security officer, or emergency services personnel.
Matt, once again, protocol for a burglary or open structure is to NOT announce one's presence as there may be an amred intruder present. As previously noted, the senior person present did not announce their presence. The Texas statute clearly states the law. Whatever you aim your gun at, you are responsible for knowing what you are aiming at. If you aim at an officer in a distinctive uniform or with a displayed badge, you are responsible and are presumed, under the law, to have known that the person was a public servant, a security officer, or emergency services personnel. When confronted by Texas statutes, I do not always choose outside counsel, but when I do, it is a salesperson from New York City, the most interesting source of law in the world. Not. Stay stupid my friend. [From thread article] Peter R. Quinones is managing editor of the Libertarian Institute and hosts the Free Man Beyond the Wall podcast. He released his first book, Freedom Through Memedom – The 31-day Guide to Waking Up to Liberty in November 2017. It reached #4 in the Libertarian Section on Amazon. He has spoken at Liberty Forum in Manchester, New Hampshire and is currently co-producing a documentary entitled, “The Monopoly on Violence,” which is scheduled for a 2020 release. It will feature the most prominent figures in libertarianism explaining how nations states came into existence, the atrocities they commit and what a truly open libertarian society would look like. Contact him at pete@libertarianinstitute.org [From Amazon] https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Through-Memedom-31-Day-Liberty/dp/1978400810/ by Mance Rayder (Author), Peter Raymond (Author), Scott Horton (Foreword) Paperback: 96 pages https://www.amazon.com/Dream-Factory-Peter-Quinones/dp/0595257216/ Peter Quinones is a salesperson and speaker from New York City. Janice Malkotsis is a writer and editor from Long Island, New York.
Do you view it as perfectly acceptable and lawful for a cop to skulk about a property without any evidence of a crime in progress and then blindly shoot a homeowner alarmed by their skulking because the homeowner picked up a gun to defend themselves and a family member? You can keep posting this until you wear out your CTRL-C and CTRL-V keys and have to buy a new keyboard. This law only applies if the officer is clearly discerned as a legitimate lawful authority, by presenting themselves in uniform, with a badge. Not skulking around and then blasting someone to announce their presence. The prosecutors will make very short work of any such defense. As you will learn in due course. Until then, copy/paste it all you like here at little LF but that isn't going to affect the outcome of the case. I can virtually guarantee you that this will not be the backbone of Dean's defense at trial. Because if that were the case, they would not have charged him with murder, would not have been able to get an arrest warrant for a non-crime, and Dean's lawyer(s) would already be filing motions to dismiss the case because immunity is protecting Dean. That is not the case. The PD, its current chief and other former high-ranking police officials, all support the prosecution. The other cop on the scene is going to testify against him. The prosecutor is dotting I's and crossing T's under Texas law by assembling a grand jury to indict him formally, subsequent to his arrest. And no judge is stopping them and no challenge based on Dean's immunity has been offered. Maybe you should volunteer to be Dean's lawyer. You could solve this whole hullabaloo for him just by citing that little statute to a judge and getting the case thrown out, toute suite. But that isn't what is happening, is it? How disappointing it must be for you that Dean's lawyers aren't as smart as you are. Maybe you should write them a letter of legal tips.
I know. The police prowl every backyard unannounced night and day here in my town. I'm sure it's the practice across the nation. ‹/sarcasm› The problem is that this demolishes any right to self-defense because that guy with a gun can get the drop on you before you, the innocent homeowner defending your family and property, has a chance to respond. Castle doctrine holds very strongly the right to self-defense, the defense of property, etc. Perhaps nolu and misterwhite would like to pass some laws that require all criminals to announce themselves, wear badges and uniforms instead of having the cops do that. That way, the homeowner could see the burglars and rapists and murderers clearly because they had badges/uniforms and announced their presence as a criminal and then the homeowner could finally lawfully reach for a gun to defend themselves and their family. Really, nolu and misterwhite are turning the right to self-defense entirely on its ears. It's bizarre, a perverse notion of of the American right to self-defense even. It's why their rhetoric sounds so repulsive.
Those terms "libertarian" and "liberty" sure do scare you copsuckers. Whatever you aim your gun at, you are responsible for knowing what you are aiming at. Unless you're a cop.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. I thought the message was, "Don't point a loaded gun out the window at someone standing outside".
The homeowner picked up a gun and pointed it out the window at someone they hadn't identified.
Bullshit. Had she pointed the gun and fired, the cop would be dead. She hesitated. She lost. The bottom line is she never should have pointed the gun. Get the gun out of the purse, sure, but hold it downward, preferably hidden.
And to you that warrants a death sentence for the innocent homeowner with no repercussions to the officer who had violated police department policy multiple times, primarily by not announcing his presence. You're in for a rude wake-up call from a Texas jury. And it won't take all that long.
The cop didn't know that was an innocent homeowner. She never identified herself. It was simply someone pointing a gun at him.
You are treating her as being as deserving of death for pointing a gun as she would be for a cold-blooded premeditated murder of a cop. She's dead either way, either for just picking up a gun to defend herself in her home against suspicious human noises in her backyard in the dead of night or for engaging in a first-degree murder of a cop. Same result for her. The mayor and the chief of police both say you're dead wrong about this. She was blameless. That is the official position of the mayor, the council, the PD chief, and the prosecutor. You're in for a big disappointment when this goes to trial. And, as with nolu's sad attempts to justify this murder by cop, if your idea of a legal defense for Dean is so viable, then why haven't his attorneys even made an attempt to dismiss the charges entirely? Yet everyone denies that Dean has any immunity from criminal prosecution or civil immunity that covers his homicide of this poor resident with a lawful CCW and a nephew to protect.
If I'm on it he walks. Self defense. You have to judge his behavior on what he knew at the time, not two weeks later when all the facts are in.
His job is to determine who is a criminal and who is not in real time. And to announce his presence as a law enforcement officer engaged in legitimate law enforcement duties. The laws are not complex. The police department policy is not unworkable. Dean will have no immunity from prosecution as you seem to imagine. Maybe Dean should hire you and nolu as his legal dream team. Let me hear you say, "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit".
Deserving of death? A bit over the top, no? I'm saying, and have said, that when you point a gun at someone they have a right to defend themselves.
You mean in the 1.44 seconds as you calculated? That real time? What about the homeowner? She's allowed to just blast away without determining if it's the police outside her window?
A press release from the Fort Worth Police department said that Dean saw a person standing near a window while searching the home's perimeter and drew his weapon. Also, there's this: The warrant doesn’t say Dean told police he saw a weapon, but it does say his partner could only see Jefferson’s face in the window before Dean opened fire. If he had indeed seen a gun, one would think he would be telling everyone in Texas - instead, after realizing he screwed the pooch big time, he resigned before he could be fired. The guy was basically a rookie with what, a year on the force? Maybe he didn't realize that history has shown if he had made up some bullshit story about seeing a gun, chances are he'd be given a two-week vacation (suspension) while the department "investigated" the incident and escaped any kind of punishment. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
Does the warrant say Dean told police he didn't see a weapon? The nephew said she had one and pointed it out the window.
No doubt his lawyer will try to exploit that angle. And the prosecutor will be doing plenty of voir dire to stop such jurors as you from being seated on the jury. It seems you are ready to engage in some jury nullification now. I thought you were fiercely opposed to that.
His job is not to shoot innocent people. First and foremost. He's supposed to be there for public safety, not to just blast people at random if he gets frightened after he broke recognized police department policy by refusing to take any opportunity to announce his lawful presence. And a woman died due to his criminal negligence. And so he has been charged with murder. And he will be convicted, likely in less than six months.
No need. The law on self-defense is clear. "And the prosecutor will be doing plenty of voir dire to stop such jurors as you from being seated on the jury." The jurors who apply the law, you mean?
No one has even established if Dean could actually see the resident's gun through the window. We have a photo of a bedroom window with a bullet hole in it but with the blinds pulled more than halfway. If they were in that position during the shooting, we have good reason to doubt that Dean could even have seen and accurately identified a gun in her hand. If he couldn't see well, it could have been the game controller for the game console she and her nephew were gaming on. It could even have been a plastic replica gun or rifle used to play shooting games on the gaming console. It could be germane as to whether Dean could even have seen the gun in her hand. He may have just blasted a dimly seen black person, seen partially through blinds at night while trying to discriminate the dark background, the lighted window and his own flashlight's very bright beam. It is not a good situation for anyone to discern targets with any accuracy. The simply story is this: a fraidy-cop didn't announce his lawful presence and blasted a homeowner without any justification. And that will convict him.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. I watched the body-cam video again - the light he was pointing into the window was reflecting off the glass. He couldn't really see much of anything IMO.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. You do this on every one of these types of stories. You wait until all the facts are in, then judge all the players based on those facts. At the exact time of the shooting, he didn't know she was innocent. Or guilty. Or the homeowner. Or a burglar. Or an armed felon who had just murdered the occupants. The police were sent on an open door call. The front door was open. It was 2:30 am and lights were on. Suddenly a figure appears in the window with a gun pointed right at him, and you expect him to somehow know she's innocent ... in 1.44 seconds. Why didn't SHE say something?
Wasn't there a light on in the room?
The nephew said she took a REAL gun out of her purse and pointed it out the window.
But you are the only one here who has already stated categorically that you will exonerate him no matter what, Mr. Foreman.
For all the responses & analyses I've read from on both sides of this issue regarding this incident, the real problem or blame seems to be the matter of basic protocol and policy. Who really bears the responsibility? IS this an LE problem? The judiciary? Anti-2A Globalist-Elites? Who is purposely re-interpreting our laws and setting up protocol & policy so that they lack common sense & common courtesy while humiliating & disrespecting the American citizenry? Isn't this exactly what we're experiencing?) The drip-drip of over-officiousness and intrusiveness we've been witnessing has coincidentally started just after 9/11, has it not?? Here is what reportedly happened to jump-start this incident: * A neighbor called police to report that her front door was ajar at 2AM.* Q: What is any "neighbor" doing up at 2:00AM? Even IF is was merely "ajar" as reported and NOT "opened," WHY did a simple slightly opened door warrant calling the Police? "Wellness Check," my azz. None of this makes any sense. WHY didn’t the investigating LE bother knocking at the door IF it was indeed a "Wellness Check"?? WHY did the investigating LE decide instead to "pull their guns and lurk around the outside of the house' with "flashlights" (which by then was un-Godly hour? (Might other neighbors be alarmed and awakened to report IT as "potential criminal intruders"?) Again, more non-sense. WHO has green-lighted this ongoing OFFICIAL(?) 20-year long policy of intrusiveness, anti-privacy, anti-personal space, and anti-Constitutional assault on the American people? Given these two factors lurking as the elephant in the room, why are people seemingly always willing to overlook or consider that it's AN AGENDA and not rogue LE at the root of this as well as countless similar problems? Many can't help but notice a trend (since the imposition of the Patriot Act) afoot in which Americans have been victimized by this sure but steady erosion and violation of Constitutional Rights.... ...whether it's via LE home invasion, shot dogs, OR as routine violations of our personal, domestic, OR state or national space & sovereignty. ALL sovereignty is being dismantled before our eyes. Can it be said (and observed) that we have been conditioned and programmed like hamsters to accept a tacit "Right of the State to impose its will to intrude upon us; to invade our home? To spy on us? To intimidate, coerce, and otherwise dismiss and crush dissent and pre-911 liberties? What's the next "Stage"?
You need to read the story and catch up on the facts before asking questions.
Not "no matter what". I would exonerate him based on the facts presented so far. It's not the cop's fault he was told it was an "open structure" call whereby they don't announce their presence. It's not his fault that a person suddenly appeared in the window with a gun pointed at him.
The neighbor called the cops and asked them to do a wellness check, which was ignored - the police changed it to an "open residence" call which apparently gives them the right to ignore all police protocols, refuse to identify themselves and allowed Officer Dean (the murderer) to open fire on an innocent woman without identifying himself as police. Even he has not claimed that he saw a gun - he shouted "get your hands up" but shot and killed Atatiana Jefferson even before he finished that sentence.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Do you find it perfectly acceptable to lie that a cop was skulking about? Do you find it perfectly acceptable to lie that a cop was not authorized to be where he was at? Do you find it perfectly acceptable to lie that a cop blindly shot a homeowner . The cop was duly authorized to be there. He responded to a call to go there. He followed protocol for the call he was given. He did not shoot blindly. His flashlight revealed a person with a gun aimed at him. YOU FORGOT ABOUT HER GUN AND HIS FLASHLIGHT. He hit his target with one shot. Your bullshit does not change the Texas statute. You cannot guarantee a damn thing because you know nothing except: You "knew" the cops faked a video of the gun. You have stated It's #FakeVideo. They edited it. “The images released showing the gun inside Ms. Jefferson’s home… the gun was irrelevant,” Price said. “She was in her own home caring for her 8-year-old nephew.” Kraus agreed that in hindsight, showing the weapon in the bodycam footage video was the wrong thing to do. He said they will review why they added that to the footage and when it is and is not appropriate. The PD tried to fake a cop-cam video and put a weapon in it. Gee, I wonder what the jury will think of that. You can expect the defense will call expert witnesses and also call the PD employees tasked with inserting that bogus footage of the gun. I thought it looked hokey the moment I saw it. It looks wrong, like an amateurish fake video made by teens on YouBoob. The window that he shot through to murder this woman. Looks like he shot her in the face. Those autopsy photos will be brutal How stupid can you be? The video was real. The hole in the window shows the bullet passed through the LOWER SASH of a double hung window. By your expert calculation, she must have been about three feet tall. The autopsy photos will likely show a shot to her gut, or possibly her leg. You have stated: He shot her because she was black. Did you embarrass yourself enough? Nope. You stated: She was not murdering black voters. And Officer Dean was murdering black voters? Officer Dean was engaged in voter suppression? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law Godwin's Law You also won an award re Godwin's Law for your reductio ad Hitlerum. Godwin's Law You stated: Pin badges on those statues and both you [nc - misterwhite] and nolu would be groveling on your knees. The other cop was not in position to see anything but Jefferson's face. The other cop was senior and did not break protocol to announce her presence. She can testify that she saw only Jefferson's face, she hear Officer Dean call out for Jefferson to show her hands, put her hands up, and she heard the report of Dean's gun when he shot, and that he discharged one, and only one, shot. And she can testify as to why, as the senior of the two, she did not announce her presence or knock on the door, and why she was engaged in surveillance of the house. Misterwhite stated: You replied to misterwhite: You're a piss-poor armchair lawyer. Maybe you should leave that end of it to nolu. You stated: And you quoted an article that began: [snip] misterwhite stated: Did you forget your original position? I posted an authoritative law dictionary definition of assault, and requested you respond with a quote from your imaginary lawbook. Quote your imaginary lawbook. You responded: My opinion of your credibility on laws is plummeting. Your non-answer did not provide any definition of assault or any Texas statute. I responded to your non-answer with a quote from the applicable Texas statute: As with #49 and #73, you pulled that out of your ass, not out of a lawbook or statute. The Texas criminal statute on assault provides: (a) A person commits an offense if the person: [...] (2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or [...] (b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed against: (1) a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant; [...] (d) For purposes of Subsection (b), the actor is presumed to have known the person assaulted was a public servant, a security officer, or emergency services personnel if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person's employment as a public servant or status as a security officer or emergency services personnel. [...] Have you no shame? You grossly misstated the law. You responded to Black's Law Dictionary by saying it was not Texas state law. You did not provide any quote of any law. In response to the Texas state law that was force fed to you, you have regurgitated and dribbled ever since. You posted bullshit. You got caught. Deal with it.
Comments (42 - 83) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestTitle: What if the Police Don’t Identify Themselves?
#2. To: Deckard, Pierre Delecto (#0)
Fort Worth police showed up for a “wellness check.”
On Thursday, the 17th, the narrative surrounding the initial call to police was changed from that of a “wellness check,” to one of a “potential burglary.” Once again, anyone who has examined cases as such recognizes that this is often done in officer-involved shootings.
#75. To: Tooconservative (#72)
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.#97. To: Deckard, Matt Agorist (#75)
On Thursday, the 17th, the narrative surrounding the initial call to police was changed from that of a “wellness check,” to one of a “potential burglary.”
#100. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#75)
On Thursday, the 17th, the narrative surrounding the initial call to police was changed from that of a “wellness check,” to one of a “potential burglary.” Once again, anyone who has examined cases as such recognizes that this is often done in officer-involved shootings.
Fort Worth Texas Police
https://www.scribd.com/document/431151697/Aaron-Dean-Arrest-Warrant-ico-Atatiana-Jefferson
#3. To: Deckard, Pierre Delecto (#0)
#96. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite, A K A Stone (#73)
[misterwhite #48] You point a gun at someone walking outside your window it's not self-defense. It's assault. Which is a crime.
Any willful attempt or threat to inflict injury upon the person of another, when coupled with an aparent present ability so to do, and any intentional display of force such as would give the victim reason to fear or expect immediate bodily harm, constitutes an assault. An assault may be committed without actually touching, or striking, of doing bodily harm to the person of another.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
Any willful attempt or threat to inflict injury upon the person of another, when coupled with an aparent present ability so to do, and any intentional display of force such as would give the victim reason to fear or expect immediate bodily harm, constitutes an assault. An assault may be committed without actually touching, or striking, of doing bodily harm to the person of another.
[Tooconservative #74] The police receive deference to their authority only if they identify themselves and present credentials. This is buttressed by making certain that the public can see their uniform as well as their badge.
ASSAULT.
#4. To: nolu chan (#2)
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#5. To: Deckard, Pierre Delecto (#4)
The subject here should not be what the original intent of the call to law enforcement was made for, but whether a “mundane” has a right to protect their home from a “protected class member,” especially one who failed to identify himself as such.
The Texas criminal statute on assault provides:
#6. To: Deckard (#4)
The subject here should not be what the original intent of the call to law enforcement was made for, but whether a “mundane” has a right to protect their home from a “protected class member,” especially one who failed to identify himself as such.
#7. To: Tooconservative (#6)
(Edited)
How could the victim see a badge in the dark? How could she see a black uniform?
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#8. To: Deckard (#7)
Well Matt, nolu sham seems to believe that Atatiana Jefferson should have "presumed" that it was Dean in her backyard and not a burglar.
#9. To: Tooconservative (#6)
[Tooconservative #6] How could the victim see a badge in the dark? How could she see a black uniform?
#10. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#7)
Well Matt, nolu sham seems to believe that Atatiana Jefferson should have "presumed" that it was Dean in her backyard and not a burglar. Even though Dean failed on several occasions to announce himself as the police and was pointing a light directly into the window making it impossible for her to see who it was outside, Atatiana should have possessed psychic ability or some such nonsense to determine that it was a cop in her yard.
Peter R. Quinones
Freedom Through Memedom: The 31-Day Guide to Waking Up to Liberty 1st Edition
Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; 1 edition (November 19, 2017)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1978400810
ISBN-13: 978-1978400818 About the Author
#11. To: nolu chan, Deckard, misterwhite (#9)
Matt, do you view it as perfectly acceptable and lawful for a blind person to wave a loaded gun about, pointing it at someone?
(d) For purposes of Subsection (b), the actor is presumed to have known the person assaulted was a public servant, a security officer, or emergency services personnel if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person's employment as a public servant or status as a security officer or emergency services personnel."
#12. To: Deckard, nolu chan, misterwhite (#7)
After all, cops are well-known for prowling around people's yards and snooping in windows at zero-dark-thirty, right?
The message from nolu (and whitey) is that the homeowner is not legally allowed to protect their home with a gun, because it might be the police and not a bad guy outside.
#13. To: nolu chan (#10)
Peter R. Quinones is managing editor of the Libertarian Institute and hosts the Free Man Beyond the Wall podcast. He released his first book, Freedom Through Memedom – The 31-day Guide to Waking Up to Liberty in November 2017.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#14. To: Deckard (#7)
The message from nolu (and whitey) is that the homeowner is not legally allowed to protect their home with a gun, because it might be the police and not a bad guy outside.
#15. To: Tooconservative (#11)
(Edited)
because the homeowner picked up a gun to defend themselves
#16. To: Tooconservative (#12)
The problem is that this demolishes any right to self-defense because that guy with a gun can get the drop on you before you, the innocent homeowner defending your family and property, has a chance to respond.
#17. To: misterwhite (#15)
They picked up a gun and pointed it out the window at someone they hadn't identified.
#18. To: Tooconservative (#17)
And to you that warrants a death sentence for the innocent homeowner
#19. To: misterwhite (#16)
Bullshit. Had she pointed the gun and fired, the cop would be dead. She hesitated. She lost.
#20. To: Tooconservative (#17)
You're in for a rude wake-up call from a Texas jury.
#21. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#18)
The cop didn't know that was an innocent homeowner.
#22. To: Tooconservative (#19)
You are treating her as being as deserving of death for pointing a gun
#23. To: Tooconservative (#21)
His job is to determine who is a criminal and who is not in real time.
#24. To: misterwhite, Tooconservative (#16)
(Edited)
They picked up a gun and pointed it out the window at someone they hadn't identified.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#25. To: Tooconservative (#21)
Let me hear you say, "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit".
#26. To: Deckard (#24)
The warrant doesn’t say Dean told police he saw a weapon ...
#27. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#20)
If I'm on it he walks. Self defense.
#28. To: misterwhite (#23)
You mean in the 1.44 seconds as you calculated? That real time?
#29. To: Tooconservative (#27)
It seems you are ready to engage in some jury nullification now.
#30. To: Deckard (#24)
Also, there's this: The warrant doesn’t say Dean told police he saw a weapon, but it does say his partner could only see Jefferson’s face in the window before Dean opened fire.
#31. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite (#27)
It seems you are ready to engage in some jury nullification now. I thought you were fiercely opposed to that.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#32. To: Tooconservative (#30)
No one has even established if Dean could actually see the resident's gun through the window. We have a photo of a bedroom window with a bullet hole in it but with the blinds pulled more than halfway. If they were in that position during the shooting, we have good reason to doubt that Dean could even have seen and accurately identified a gun in her hand.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#33. To: Tooconservative (#28)
His job is not to shoot innocent people.
#34. To: Deckard (#32)
He couldn't really see much of anything IMO
#35. To: Tooconservative (#30)
If he couldn't see well, it could have been the game controller for the game console she and her nephew were gaming on. It could even have been a plastic replica gun or rifle used to play shooting games on the gaming console.
#36. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#33)
You do this on every one of these types of stories. You wait until all the facts are in, then judge all the players based on those facts.
#37. To: Deckard, TooConservative, misterwhite, nolu chan, GrandIsland (#0)
#38. To: Liberator (#37)
WHY didn’t the investigating LE bother knocking at the door IF it was indeed a "Wellness Check"??
#39. To: Tooconservative (#36)
But you are the only one here who has already stated categorically that you will exonerate him no matter what, Mr. Foreman.
#40. To: Liberator (#37)
WHY didn’t the investigating LE bother knocking at the door IF it was indeed a "Wellness Check"??
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#41. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite (#11)
Do you view it as perfectly acceptable and lawful for a cop to skulk about a property without any evidence of a crime in progress and then blindly shoot a homeowner
You can keep posting this until you wear out your CTRL-C and CTRL-V keys and have to buy a new keyboard. This law only applies if the officer is clearly discerned as a legitimate lawful authority, by presenting themselves in uniform, with a badge. Not skulking around and then blasting someone to announce their presence.
I can virtually guarantee you that this will not be the backbone of Dean's defense at trial.
One more, on the gun that is shown very very briefly in the cop-cam footage.
During Monday’s press conference, Fort Worth Mayor Betsy Price said that displaying the gun in the bodycam footage was unnecessary.
At some point, people will not accept a cop saying "Oh, I saw a nigger and I was frightened so I shot her full of holes with no regard for anyone else in the house."
The other officer was Carol Darch who passed her police trainee eligibility test on 3/7/2018 with a rank of 65 out of 100 applicants. Yet she did not take lead in the backyard. Because she was following PD policy and not murdering the black voters.
Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies) is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"; that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends. Promulgated by the American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990, Godwin's law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions. It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.
You two just want to give any cop a get-out-of-jail-free card for anyone they shoot, no matter the circumstances. Because they have a badge. And because you two seem to have a fascistic homo-erotic fixation on constumed men with badges. This is a particular cultural characteristic of German and Russian totalitarianism that was expressed as Nazism and Soviet communism back in the era. Here's a photo that you two will probably like by the official top Nazi sculptor, pictured below with Hitler and Goebbels and Hitler's doggie Blondi sniffing the sculptor's crotch, like he has some B.O.
The other cop on the scene is going to testify against him.
You point a gun at someone walking outside your window it's not self-defense. It's assault. Which is a crime.
It is not.
Let's look at just one state's definition of assault and how it applied to a cop.
Prince George's County Police Officer Jenchesky Santiago was convicted of first-degree assault and three other charges for pointing and holding his gun in a black man's face.
I say pointing a gun is assault, you say I'm full of it, then you post an article where a cop pointed a gun and was charged with assault.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
Any willful attempt or threat to inflict injury upon the person of another, when coupled with an aparent present ability so to do, and any intentional display of force such as would give the victim reason to fear or expect immediate bodily harm, constitutes an assault. An assault may be committed without actually touching, or striking, of doing bodily harm to the person of another.
Dear God, are you under the impression that Black's Law Dictionary constitutes the statutes of the state of Texas or the city of Fort Worth or the official policies of the Fort Worth PD?
You huff and puff, but you offer nothing to support your bullshit at #49 with more bullshit at #73, which descended lower at #74.
[Tooconservative #74] The police receive deference to their authority only if they identify themselves and present credentials. This is buttressed by making certain that the public can see their uniform as well as their badge.
ASSAULT.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]