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: 15973
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Well, she had one when she was shot in self defense by the cop. In addition (from another article): "A toxicology report showed that Hawkes had a high concentration of meth in her body when she died. She tested positive for six different drugs including opiates, marijuana and anti-anxiety medication." "Her family and friends said she had a troubled past with a criminal history that began in her teens."
And if she forgot to put her fingerprints on the gun, what else would she have forgotten to do? Silly girl.
And if she forgot to put her fingerprints on the gun, what else would she have forgotten to do? Silly girl. You considered only one side of the story, the side of the plaintiff, and you believed it? Silly boy. That figures …
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.
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.”
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.
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 …
#28. To: Gatlin (#19)
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.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"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."
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
Well, she had one when she was shot in self defense by the cop.
#3. To: Pinguinite, misterwhite (#2)
(Edited)
Well, she had one when she was shot in self defense by the cop.
It was ONLY the Hawkes family who said “the gun found at the scene had no DNA or fingerprints on it.”
#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.”
#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.”
#11. To: Gatlin (#8)
The phase “pretty certain” is used when “engaged in, expressing, or based on conjecture rather than knowledge.”
#12. To: Deckard (#11)
#13. To: Gatlin (#12)
you used the phrase “pretty certain”
#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.
Replies to Comment # 19. "you used the phrase “pretty certain”
End Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]