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: 14964
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 # 67.
#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.
Use to also be called a " drop gun ", usually wiped good, and kept in a zip lock until needed.
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.
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!
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.
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 ?
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."
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?
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.
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.
So the cop stole the gun from the owner and planted it near the girl he shot who he knew was corresponding with the gun owner on Facebook. She was a meth head who had been arrested many times. This time, she stole a truck then ran from the police. The autopsy showed she had a half-dozen different drugs in her system at the time of her death. She corresponded on Facebook with the owner of the gun found next to her body. But because the officer's camera accidentally unplugged during the chase, your conclusion is that he murdered the girl and planted the gun. What's wrong with you?
I fail to understand why it is so difficult for someone to understand the fallacy of the “throw down theory” after reading this rebuttal from the Albuquerque Journal: 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.
They are not about to let the facts get in the way of the "real" story.
Seriously? Albuquerque cop Jeremy Dear reinstated after ‘repeated insubordination and untruthfulness’ Officials in Albuquerque, New Mexico, have agreed to reinstate a police officer who had been fired for routinely turning off his body camera, including during a fatal 2014 officer-involved shooting. The city’s personnel board voted 3-2 on Tuesday in favor of giving Jeremy Dear his job back with the Albuquerque Police Department. Officer Dear was fired last year as a result of what Police Chief Gorden Eden called “a clear case of repeated insubordination and untruthfulness,” KRQE News reported last week. In 2013, the police department ordered Officer Dear to begin recording all of his on-the-job interactions with city residents after the department received several complaints. Chief Eden said Officer Dear routinely failed to comply and had not switched on his lapel camera before fatally shooting a 19-year-old woman following a foot chase the following year. Police department spokeswoman Celina Espinoza said the reason Officer Dear was fired “had little to do with the issue of lapel camera usage,” with other officials citing a routine disregard for the rules. Chief Eden said the city will appeal the board’s decision to reinstate Officer Dear and said his termination had been sought because of “a clear case of repeated insubordination and untruthfulness.” “As I’ve stated before, insubordination and untruthfulness tear at the fabric of public safety, especially when the officer makes a choice not to follow a lawful order,” Chief Eden said in a statement. So - to recap. Dear was fired for repeated insubordination and untruthfulness and was rehired despite that. Yeah - because having a lying, insubordinate cop on your force is what all departments should aspire to do.
Seriously? The gun found by Hawkes at the time she was shot was registered to Erik Hawke, a friend of Mary Hawkes. Hawkes visited Hawke a week before she was shot. Michael Gaddy, another friend, accused her of stealing a gun from Hawkes a week before she was shot. And here we have two idiots claiming that Jeremy Dear was able to get his hands on that weapon from either Hawke or Hawkes, carry it around for up to a week in a plastic zip lock bag before shooting Hawkes and throwing the weapon down beside her. You assholes are bizarre….strange and unusual enough to especially cause temporary amusement.
“As I’ve stated before, insubordination and untruthfulness tear at the fabric of public safety, especially when the officer makes a choice not to follow a lawful order,” Chief Eden said in a statement.
And you believe him? He's a cop!
From the looks of it - he's an honest cop. At least he has the integrity to not try and make excuses for officer Dear.
From the looks of it - he's an honest cop. From the "looks of it"....you can decide when someone is an honest cop? BULLSHIT ...
I can certainly read what he said and come to that conclusion.
That reminds me of your asshole libertarian buddy when he said: “I believe it when I read it….util it is proven wrong.” You libertarian assholes have a weird way of looking at things.
I took time to look it up. Here is what your libertarian buddy said:
There are no replies to Comment # 67. End Trace Mode for Comment # 67.
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.”
#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."
#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. "
#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 ?"
#21. To: misterwhite (#18)
" As for the lack of fingerprints ..."
#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?"
#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?
#45. To: Stoner (#44)
"did not have fingerprints on it, clearly indicates that it was planted."
#48. To: misterwhite (#45)
What's wrong with you?
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.
#51. To: Gatlin (#48)
#53. To: misterwhite, Gatlin, Stoner (#51)
They are not about to let the facts get in the way of the "real" story.
#54. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#53)
(Edited)
They are not about to let the facts get in the way of the "real" story.
Yea….SERIOUSLY!
#55. To: Gatlin (#54)
#58. To: Deckard (#55)
“As I’ve stated before, insubordination and untruthfulness tear at the fabric of public safety, especially when the officer makes a choice not to follow a lawful order,” Chief Eden said in a statement.
#60. To: misterwhite (#58)
And you believe him? He's a cop!
#62. To: Deckard. misterwhite (#60)
And you believe him? He's a cop!
#64. To: Gatlin (#62)
From the "looks of it"....you can decide when someone is an honest cop?
#66. To: Deckard (#64)
can certainly read what he said and come to that conclusion.
#67. To: Deckard (#66)
Any conclusions I draw from an article and post in response are with the presumption that it is factually correct. Upon notice that stated facts are not correct, I am happy to revise my conclusions.
weird ...
Replies to Comment # 67.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]