Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: The Gun in Atatiana Jefferson’s Hand Will Be Far from Irrelevant
Source:
Dallas Observer
URL Source: https://www.dallasobserver.com/news ... he-cop-who-killed-her-11781823
Published: Oct 20, 2019
Author: Jim Schutze
Post Date: 2019-10-20 08:45:35 by nolu chan
Keywords: atatiana, jefferson
Views: 32886
Comments: 119
The Gun in Atatiana Jefferson’s Hand Will Be Far from Irrelevant Jim Schutze The mayor of Fort Worth says there is no relevance or importance in the fact that Atatiana Jefferson, killed by a Fort Worth police officer Saturday, had a gun. The mayor is wrong. According to the murder warrant for the former police officer who killed her, Jefferson, 28, pointed her gun toward the window at the police officer moments before the cop shot her. I am not arguing that the cop was within the law. That will be a very complicated question for courts to resolve. But I know this much right now: The gun is everything. Read the murder warrant for former Fort Worth Police Officer Aaron Dean, as it talks about an interview of Jefferson’s 8-year-old nephew by a police investigator: Sure, Jefferson had every right to keep a gun in her house. We do not know yet if she had legal authority to carry a concealed weapon. But this has nothing to do with gun rights anyway. This is about guns. Her gun is what got her killed. Does that mean the cop was within his rights in shooting her? No, not necessarily. I’m not talking about rights. Rights are abstract. Atatiana Jefferson is dead. Death is not abstract. Guns have their own cruel logic, no matter who holds them. If I want to survive a gunfight, I need to be one jump, preferably two jumps ahead of the other guy when it happens. Or I’m dead. It’s all about who gets the jump. It’s not about who has a right to have a gun. It’s about who shoots first. In and of themselves, guns don’t make anybody safe. All a gun does is take you to a gunfight. Once you’re there, you’re there. You’re in a gunfight. It’s not a conversation. Firing a gun is a process. The gun is not a button to be pushed. It has to be unholstered or removed from a purse or place of safekeeping. The gun may have to be manipulated to place a cartridge in the chamber ready for firing. A safety mechanism designed to make it impossible to shoot the gun may have to be switched off. Then the gun is aimed. Then the trigger is pulled. This will be read, I am sure, as a boot-licking, cop-loving defense of Dean for shooting Jefferson. This will also be read as racist, because Dean is a white cop and Jefferson was African American. But I’m really the last person to offer expertise on either of those questions in this case. As we learned from the Amber Guyger/Botham Jean tragedy, in which a white Dallas police officer shot and killed a black man in his own apartment, the law can be complex and arcane in these matters. The Fort Worth shooting will be even more complicated than Guyger, because the cop in Fort Worth will have a better argument for self-defense. This also will be a tougher prosecution because the Fort Worth cop resigned from the force before he could be questioned and before an internal affairs investigation could be launched. We should expect to see more of that. The Guyger/Jean case reminded me that, quite apart from nominal liberalism and conservatism, white people and black people in this country still view social reality through very different lenses based on very different experiences. I believe that, whatever kind of terrible mistake Guyger’s shooting of Jean may have been, it is possible for it not to have been racial. I don’t think I know a single black person who agrees with me. The ungodly procession of internet videos in the last few years showing white cops shooting unarmed black citizens rips away the curtain, my black friends say, on what really dwells in the white heart. What is there, they say, is a superstitious tribal fear of the other. That inner fear is what makes white cops shoot black people quicker than they shoot white people, and the unmistakable pattern is the undeniable proof. For that reason, black people must live in fear that every transaction with a white cop may suddenly explode and cost them their lives. That may all be true, every word of it, but none of it changes the reality of guns. I own guns. Always have. Grew up with a .22 rifle. Never hunted, just because my dad didn’t. I like hunters. They love the forest. I worked on ranches and farms as a young man, carried some kind of rifle in the jeep or pickup for varmints. Never shot a varmint. I like varmints. Shot clay pigeons with shotguns with my son when he was a kid. Keep a few guns in the house for protection. So I understand why people keep guns in their homes. I do it. But I know this. If a cop comes to my house and I meet him with a gun in my hand, I stand a really good chance of getting shot dead. I don’t want to get killed, so, if I see a cop coming, I’m going to put down my gun and probably put both of my hands on my head. For Atatiana Jefferson, it wasn’t that simple. She didn’t have that option. It doesn’t look as if either person, Jefferson or Dean, had enough time to perceive who and what the other was. She didn’t have time to see that he was a cop. He didn’t have time to see that she was in her own house. All of that goes to the dismal algorithm of guns. Things will go wrong. A welfare check gets dispatched wrongly as an “open building.” To the cop, that means break-in, which means bad guy inside, probably armed. Does the cop announce himself at the door? Of course not. Why would the cop do that? If the bad guy is in there with a gun, the cop who announces himself at the door is just giving the bad guy time to get two jumps ahead of the cop in the process of shooting. The cop, by practice and by instinct, always wants to be at least two jumps ahead. The cop always wants the advantage. It’s not a sport. Should cops go around fearing that every bad guy they encounter has a gun? Of course they should. Because we have flooded our society with guns. According to The Washington Post, the United States crossed a line of demarcation in 2008. In that year, the number of guns in the country exceeded the population. In 1996, there were fewer than 250 million civilian firearms in the United States. By 2017, the number of guns was approaching 400 million. According to the BBC, America is by far the most gun-owning country in the world, with two and three times more guns per resident than the runner-up countries of Yemen, Serbia and Montenegro. If those other three look like lawless, violent places to you, and if civilian gun ownership is any indicator, then we must be the most lawless, violent society in the world. Doesn’t feel that way to you? Perhaps you think of this country as a relatively peaceful and secure place. That probably depends a lot on where and who you are. In 2016, the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation published a study of global disease, injury and risk factors. It found that six nations accounted for half of the world’s total gun deaths that year not related to war or terrorism. The United States was second after Brazil. Mexico was third. The same study put us much lower on the ladder for gun deaths per capita. We were No. 20 on that list. So that could mean our gun deaths are evenly distributed everywhere, from Minnesota farm country to the nation’s major cities, or our gun deaths are concentrated in places that must be among the most violent and dangerous in the world. I think we know the answer. When cops go into our cities looking for bad guys, they go looking for bad guys with guns. While that may make police training all the more important, it also pushes training to a certain human limit. Former Dallas police Chief David Brown, one of the most respected police officials in the country and a lifelong cop himself, told me he believes escalation of force and diversity awareness training are indispensable elements in any effective, responsible police academy curriculum. But he also told me something else. He said he knows that the minute a freshly minted rookie from the academy climbs into a patrol car with a veteran trainer, that trainer tells him to forget everything he was taught in the academy. Brown told me the trainer will tell the rookie that the academy training will get the rookie killed, which may be OK with the trainer, but it will also get the trainer killed, which is not OK with the trainer. What does that mean? I think you and I can answer that for ourselves by putting ourselves in the position. We are approaching an open house where we have reason to believe there may be an armed intruder (because in this country intruders must be presumed to be armed). Do we announce ourselves to the intruder? No. We already have our guns in our hands. The safeties are off. The rounds are chambered. What happens when we suddenly see the muzzle of a gun looking back at us? That moment is not about rights. It’s not about training. It’s about guns and basic survival instinct. It’s about staying alive in a world of guns. There’s only one way to change that. Make it a different world. Jim Schutze has been the city columnist for the Dallas Observer since 1998. He has been a recipient of the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies’ national award for best commentary and Lincoln University’s national Unity Award for writing on civil rights and racial issues. In 2011 he was admitted to the Texas Institute of Letters. https://www.scribd.com/document/431151697/Aaron-Dean-Arrest-Warrant-ico-Atatiana-Jefferson
Dalas Observer
October 17, 2019 | 4:00am “(The nephew, name redacted) told (the investigator) that he and Jefferson were playing video games in the back bedroom. Jefferson told (the nephew) that she heard noises coming from outside, and she took her handgun from her purse. (The nephew) said Jefferson raised her handgun, pointed it toward the window. Then Jefferson was shot and fell to the ground.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 109.
#7. To: All (#0)
It was NOT a wellness or welfare check. The cops were sent on a report of an OPEN STRUCTURE. That is treated the same as a suspected armed robbery or burglary in progress until revealed otherwise. It is assumed that an armed bad guy is inside until revealed otherwise. The cop does not approach the door or window and call out, "Yoohoo, mister armed robber, are you in there?" The occupant put her own life at risk by pulling out a gun, and appearing at the window with it trained outside. If she was not going to shoot the damn thing, she should not have been pointing it around. https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article236163388.html Officer in shooting acted as if responding to burglary, not welfare check, expert says By Nichole Manna [excerpt] Asked on Saturday afternoon what exactly dispatch told the responding officers and what the call was labeled as when officers were sent, Officer Buddy Calzada wrote in an email that more information would be shared during a press conference on Sunday. That question was not answered during the press conference. It’s important to know what information the officers were given because Benza said officers who are going to a burglary call should react much differently than if they’re checking on someone’s welfare.
Riddle me this Mr. Hart: How often do armed robbers break into a home, leave the lights on, sit down in a bedroom and play video games? “The nephew, told the investigator that he and Jefferson were playing video games in the back bedroom. The cops were snooping outside the window, they most certainly would have heard the cacophonous soundtrack coming from a video game being played inside the house. You would think that at least one or two of these porcine poltroons would have said: "That don't sound like no robbery to me, sounds like a kid playing a video game or watching TV. We should ring the doorbell instead."
“The nephew, told the investigator that he and Jefferson were playing video games in the back bedroom. The cops were snooping outside the window, they most certainly would have heard the cacophonous soundtrack coming from a video game being played inside the house. Questions and outrage after Fort Worth officer fatally shoots 28-year-old woman in her home By Dana Branham [excerpt] About a minute-and-a-half into the video, he swivels toward a window, then yells, “Put your hands up! Show me your hands!” and fires into the window within about three seconds. Jefferson's nephew in the room observed Jefferson playing video games. The officers did not. They first observed Jefferson at the window, after she had taken out her gun. The interaction between the shooting officer and Jefferson lasted a few seconds. He observed Jefferson at the window, yelled for her to put her hands up, she did not comply, he did not mistake the gun pointed at him as part of a video game, and he fired. People should not point guns at cops if they are not seeking suicide by cop.
Cops shouldn't shoot people in their own homes unless they want to be Bubba's personal homeboy for the next 10 years or so. The neighbor who called the cops avoided the use of the 911 number and instead called a non-emergency police number. This strongly indicates that the neighbor did not believe that a crime was in progress. If you believe your neighbor is being burglarized or beaten or raped or is in a home invasion, you call 911. The neighbor deliberately chose not to call 911. I notice the ex-officer is now being referred to as Aaron York Dean. He's getting the serial killer treatment by the press. He'll almost certainly go to prison for homicide. It will be interesting to see how the prosecution and defense is conducted in the wake of the Guyger case.
Irrelevant. The caller gave information of an open structure. The responding officers were not on the call. The person who took the call classified it as an open structure call, and dispatched the officers on an open structure. It will be contrasted with and distinguished from the Geiger case, arguing the lack of any relationship at all. It will be argued the officer did not zone out and walk in, but was dispatched to an open structure. He encountered an armed individual who did not respond to command. If it was not properly classified as an open structure call, the dispatcher is the responsible party, not the responding officer.
I dearly wish that you should encounter such a police officer and fail to "respond to command" and see how you like getting shot up because some nosy neighbor saw your inside doors open and tipped off the cops to do a "wellness check". Apparently, you believe that the police can issue commands to anyone at any time even in their own home and just execute them instantly if they don't obey. In the middle of the night in their own homes. Now you want to put the police dispatcher on trial. Maybe you could give a medal to that cop who blew away the homeowner while you're at it. And a promotion. Maybe a bigger gun and a bigger badge too. So, in your opinion, are the police entitled to execute anyone without consequences if they are snooping around in a place that has been reported as "an open structure" by some neighborhood busybody? You're a disgrace. Are you trying to compete with misterwhite for some Copsucker Of The Year award?
At your #13, you expressed your wonderment at how the prosecution and defense would be conducted. [Tooconservative #13] He'll almost certainly go to prison for homicide. It will be interesting to see how the prosecution and defense is conducted in the wake of the Guyger case. With my #18, I quoted and directly responded to your statement of wonderment and opined what the defense would be. At your #20, you engaged in your fantasy of a "wellness check'. The prosecution will be anything but a claim of a "wellness check". The Court will forbid the prosecution from mentioning a wellness check or eliciting any testimony about a wellness check. There is zero evidence to indicate the officers were instructed to perform a "wellness check," and abundance of evidence that they responded to a dispatcher's open structure call. The arrest warrant documents an open structure call. As for the nosy neighbor(s), it should be noted that the caller's sister who lived across the street observed the open structure and called her brother (who lived in another house) about it. The brave brother called the cops. He may have suspected that his neighbor lady was on the floor of the bathroom where stroke victims go to stroke. The brave brother did not go to check on the neighbor's wellness. Why not? But wait, the brave brother noted that both cars were there. Wouldn't you know it, two people were there. If one was experiencing a medical emergency, why would the other not call for emergency medicine? In case you missed it. https://people.com/crime/officer-shot-atatiana-jefferson-wasnt-doing-wellness-check/ Officer Who Shot Atatiana Jefferson Wasn't Asked to Do Wellness Check Despite Neighbor's Request Fort Worth Interim Police Chief Ed Kraus told reporters on Tuesday that former officer Aaron Dean was responding to an "open structure call" By Joelle Goldstein [excerpt] “Are they usually home at this time?” the dispatcher asked the neighbor. “They’re usually home but they never have both doors open,” the neighbor responded. “The lights are on, I can see through the house. My sister woke me up, she lives across the street from them. I live on the opposite side of my sister.” No, but I do believe that if one is going to put a gun in their hand and brandish or aim it at an armed cop or an armed hit man, one had better damned well be prepared to shoot. The 8-year old nephew related that, "Jefferson raised her gun and aimed it at the window." The cop outside observed her gun aimed at him. Had she shot first, and hit what she aimed at, she might be alive. In response to your wonderment at what the defense would be, if I were the defense counsel I would want to assign blame to anyone but the defendant. When the defense can blame someone else, they do it. There will be no charge against the dispatcher as the call was properly classified. The brave neighbor reported that the doors were open. He offered nothing to suggest a medical emergency. The prosecution will seek to show that the officer failed to positively identify the victim as a proper target. The defense will counter that the officer had a gun aimed at him, he gave verbal commands that were not responded to, he reasonably felt his life was in danger, and his shoot was justified. We just went through the Geiger case. It's Texas. If he is to go to jail, it would be for murder. His act was intentional. He aimed, he shot, and he hit his intended target. He is charged with murder, not homicide. You are a failure of intellect, logic and law. There was no wellness check. The police call sheet labeled it as a burglary. The arrest warrant called it an open structure call. There were no trespassers. Nobody was prowling in the bushes. They were dressed as cops and using flashlights. There were two cars noted at the address. The two brave neighbors would not go over there in the night because... Benghazi. In fear, they called the cops. Aaron Dean was only an officer with FWPD since April 2018. He immediately resigned. Neither the prosecution nor the FWPD will get any statement or interview from Aaron Dean before trial. I am confident that if you were the defendant the defense would be a guilty plea and a request for the death penalty, and a thank you note to your defense counsel for his assistance.
The jury will see right through that. The jury pool has already been thoroughly poisoned with this info. And there is no way to present the case without the jury knowing the precise circumstances leading to the unrequested police presence. “Are they usually home at this time?” the dispatcher asked the neighbor. “They’re usually home but they never have both doors open,” the neighbor responded. “The lights are on, I can see through the house. My sister woke me up, she lives across the street from them. I live on the opposite side of my sister.” Look again at the Google StreetView. There is no other house there on the other side of the street. The brother's account seems completely wrong once you look at the photos. The victim's house was located only feet from the church-turned-masjid and there is no other house on that side of the street for a block. There were houses there before, judging by the photos but they were torn down years before. I find this story of the brother and sister on opposite sides of the street very suspicious and likely inaccurate. The victim's home is the only one on that side of the street. So you're fine with the notion of citizens doing the quickdraw to shoot out of windows at anyone in their backyard at night, cop or burglar? God, you're an idiot. And, no, she should not have shot first out a window into a dark backyard. However, she had a right to be alarmed. The cop did not since he deliberately chose not to announce his presence as a lawful peace officer. Most of his legal shield under Texas statutes evaporates because he did not identify himself and present his badge to the lawful occupant of the premises or otherwise make his presence known such as by arriving with a police siren and lights on. The jury will hear the recorded call. What will they hear? "I called my police department for a welfare check," Smith told WFAA. "No domestic violence, no arguing, nothing that they should have been concerned about as far as them coming with guns drawn to my neighbor’s house." And that is exactly what the jury will hear, whether the judge likes it or not. The number he called was likely the neighborhood watch number posted on the sign across the street from the masjid. It was a requested wellness check with no allegation or suggestion of any criminal activity on the premises. Regardless of who decided to call it an open structure call. And an open structure call does not justify blasting anyone on the premises. It only indicates the officer may be facing a criminal situation, not that any criminal activity has actually been reported or even suspected. This suggests caution to a police officer but it is not a license to kill. The cop is still fully responsible for his own use of force, especially if innocent civilians die due to his negligence and incompetence. You don't read very well apparently. The killer cop's partner will also testify against him and has already made damaging statements to the press and in her report which the jury will read: "Perceiving a threat, the officer drew his duty weapon and fired one shot striking the person inside the residence," a statement from the police department reads. Dean's partner, identified in the warrant as L. Darch, told investigators she never saw Jefferson raise the gun before Dean opened fire. "Officer Darch said that they went into the backyard and Officer Dean was standing between her and the house and she could only see Jefferson's face through the window when Officer Dean discharged his weapon one time," the arrest warrant affidavit reads. His partner's testimony will sink him. She saw the victim's face but saw no gun. The jury will trust his adult partner's judgment far more than statements coaxed by police from a hysterical 8yo boy who had just seen his aunt gunned down in her own home. And the jury will also realize that a chickenshit incompetent cop will have great incentive to claim he saw a gun pointed at him once he realizes he just shot an innocent woman. He will certainly attempt a fraidy-cop defense and only resigned once he realized that the PD wasn't going to cover for him. But his partner has already slammed the door on that with the investigators and her testimony is consistent with the video footage. A case you followed so closely that you still don't know the proper spelling of that killer cop's name despite having posted on it recently and repeatedly. They don't need one. The police chief and the PD have already thrown him under the bus and rightly so. They have his cop-cam footage, his partner's testimony, and the murder photos. And the photos of the victim and her little nephew, now left without a home because of this reckless cop who shoots first after prowling in the night unannounced in someone's backyard. The jury will also hear those statements in the press constantly from the police officials that no wrong can be assigned to the murdered homeowner. It is Texas after all. Even black people are allowed to defend themselves. And the woman did have a valid CCW license to carry. So if the woman did no wrong in getting her gun, there can be only one person to blame: the killer cop whose own partner will testify against him that she saw no gun pointed at him, eliminating his fraidy-cop defense. That works against the killer cop. The jury will rightly perceive that he resigned rather than to make statements to police investigators about his actions. This is prima facie evidence of a guilty conscience in a police officer who is refusing to make a report on his actions and face the scrutiny of his superiors and questioning of his actions. Once he had resigned, he became an ordinary criminal defendant and could refuse to provide further information to investigators. Legally, he was wise to follow his counsel's advice to do so since they would have questioned him to elicit damaging statements and then fired him anyway (which they admitted they were planning to do). The jury won't find it hard to understand any of this. And who was entirely to blame for this poor woman's death. You could at least pretend to regret that this woman was murdered. Even if she was just a black woman. I wonder what will happen to her poor nephew now. He was living with her; that was his home.
Oops. "The nephew told the investigator that he and Jefferson were playing video games in the back bedroom. Jefferson told the nephew that she heard noises coming from outside, and she took her handgun from her purse. The nephew said Jefferson raised her handgun, pointed it toward the window. Then Jefferson was shot and fell to the ground.” He was right there. In the lighted room with her. Was he mistaken or did he lie? Why would he lie? Huge difference between not seeing someone raise a gun and someone not raising a gun.
He was right there. In the lighted room with her. Was he mistaken or did he lie? Why would he lie? So what? The police chief and mayor have already stated publicly that the murder victim was not to blame for getting her gun out. The nephew also stated that he wanted to be the one to peek out the window instead of her but she wouldn't let him. So she approached the window and died as a result, likely saving the life of her nephew. What good is a gun to defend yourself with if anyone, including cops, can just shoot you from darkened concealment in the middle of the night? That's a pretty worthless "right" if you ask me. In fact, the entire foundation of the arguments that you and nolu are offering essentially bankrupt the entire notion of a legal right to self-defense under any circumstances other than confronting a criminal intent on murder, theft or rape against your person or property. 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. Pin badges on those statues and both you and nolu would be groveling on your knees. Your fixation on police authority and reflexive defense of even the most criminal police agents caught redhanded in criminal behavior is a toxic sickness with you two.
You point a gun at someone walking outside your window it's not self-defense. It's assault. Which is a crime. The person outside the window has every right to defend themselves.
It is not. You're a piss-poor armchair lawyer. Maybe you should leave that end of it to nolu.
[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.
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. 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.
[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?
(a) A person commits an offense if the person: (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; Former officer Dean DID NOT identify himself as a cop. You seem to keep ignoring that fact.
You seem to keep ignoring that fact. No. You are full of shit. "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." 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? Damn. It was boldfaced and underlined and you still "missed" it.
There are no replies to Comment # 109. End Trace Mode for Comment # 109.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
October 13, 2019 04:59 PM, Updated October 14, 2019 10:29 AM The 911 records provided to the public don’t give any indication that dispatchers relayed to officers that the call was a welfare check. A police call sheet on Saturday labeled the call as a “burglary.” A written statement released by police on Saturday afternoon referred to the dispatch as an “open structure” call.
#9. To: nolu chan (#7)
It was NOT a wellness or welfare check. The cops were sent on a report of an OPEN STRUCTURE. That is treated the same as a suspected armed robbery or burglary in progress until revealed otherwise.
#11. To: Deckard (#9)
Riddle me this Mr. Hart: How often do armed robbers break into a home, leave the lights on, sit down in a bedroom and play video games?
DallasNews.com
7:52 PM on Oct 13, 2019 In body-camera footage released Saturday, the officer who shot Jefferson is seen walking around the backyard of the home.
#13. To: nolu chan (#11)
People should not point guns at cops if they are not seeking suicide by cop.
#18. To: Tooconservative (#13)
The neighbor who called the cops avoided the use of the 911 number and instead called a non-emergency police number. This strongly indicates that the neighbor did not believe that a crime was in progress. If you believe your neighbor is being burglarized or beaten or raped or is in a home invasion, you call 911. The neighbor deliberately chose not to call 911.
He'll almost certainly go to prison for homicide. It will be interesting to see how the prosecution and defense is conducted in the wake of the Guyger case.
#20. To: nolu chan, Deckard (#18)
It will be contrasted with and distinguished from the Geiger case, arguing the lack of any relationship at all. It will be argued the officer did not zone out and walk in, but was dispatched to an open structure. He encountered an armed individual who did not respond to command. If it was not properly classified as an open structure call, the dispatcher is the responsible party, not the responding officer.
It will be contrasted with and distinguished from the Geiger case, arguing the lack of any relationship at all. It will be argued the officer did not zone out and walk in, but was dispatched to an open structure. He encountered an armed individual who did not respond to command. If it was not properly classified as an open structure call, the dispatcher is the responsible party, not the responding officer.
#34. To: Tooconservative (#20)
[nolu chan #18] It will be contrasted with and distinguished from the Geiger case, arguing the lack of any relationship at all. It will be argued the officer did not zone out and walk in, but was dispatched to an open structure. He encountered an armed individual who did not respond to command. If it was not properly classified as an open structure call, the dispatcher is the responsible party, not the responding officer.
[Tooconservative #20] I dearly wish that you should encounter such a police officer and fail to "respond to command" and see how you like getting shot up because some nosy neighbor saw your inside doors open and tipped off the cops to do a "wellness check".
People Magazine
October 17, 2019 08:50 PM “Well, the front doors have been open since 10 o’clock. I haven’t seen anybody moving around. It’s not normal for them to have both of the doors open this time of night,” the neighbor said, later adding that he wasn’t sure if anyone was home but noted that both cars were there.
[Tooconservative #20] Apparently, you believe that the police can issue commands to anyone at any time even in their own home and just execute them instantly if they don't obey.
[Tooconservative #20] Now you want to put the police dispatcher on trial.
[Tooconservative #13] He'll almost certainly go to prison for homicide.
[Tooconservative #20] You're a disgrace. Are you trying to compete with misterwhite for some Copsucker Of The Year award?
#36. To: nolu chan (#34)
The prosecution will be anything but a claim of a "wellness check". The Court will forbid the prosecution from mentioning a wellness check or eliciting any testimony about a wellness check. There is zero evidence to indicate the officers were instructed to perform a "wellness check," and abundance of evidence that they responded to a dispatcher's open structure call. The arrest warrant documents an open structure call.
“Well, the front doors have been open since 10 o’clock. I haven’t seen anybody moving around. It’s not normal for them to have both of the doors open this time of night,” the neighbor said, later adding that he wasn’t sure if anyone was home but noted that both cars were there.
Had she shot first, and hit what she aimed at, she might be alive.
You are a failure of intellect, logic and law. There was no wellness check.
A neighbor had earlier called the police department's non-emergency line to ask that a welfare check be conducted on Jefferson's home because he noticed the front door was wide open, the neighbor, James Smith, told ABC affiliate station WFAA in Dallas.
The defense will counter that the officer had a gun aimed at him, he gave verbal commands that were not responded to, he reasonably felt his life was in danger, and his shoot was justified.
Body camera footage released by the police department shows Dean approaching a rear window of the home with his gun drawn. The officer sees the woman through the window, shouts, "Put your hands up, show me your hands," and fires one shot. Kraus confirmed that Dean never identified himself as police.
We just went through the Geiger case.
Neither the prosecution nor the FWPD will get any statement or interview from Aaron Dean before trial.
But police officials said 28-year-old Atatiana "Tay" Jefferson, the victim of the shooting early Saturday, was within her rights to protect herself and her nephew when she heard noises in her backyard and went to the window to investigate.
Aaron Dean was only an officer with FWPD since April 2018. He immediately resigned.
#41. To: Tooconservative (#36)
Dean's partner, identified in the warrant as L. Darch, told investigators she never saw Jefferson raise the gun before Dean opened fire.
#45. To: misterwhite, nolu chan, Deckard (#41)
"The nephew told the investigator that he and Jefferson were playing video games in the back bedroom. Jefferson told the nephew that she heard noises coming from outside, and she took her handgun from her purse. The nephew said Jefferson raised her handgun, pointed it toward the window. Then Jefferson was shot and fell to the ground.”
#48. To: Tooconservative (#45)
bankrupt the entire notion of a legal right to self-defense
#49. To: misterwhite (#48)
You point a gun at someone walking outside your window it's not self-defense. It's assault. Which is a crime.
#65. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite (#49)
[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.
#73. To: nolu chan (#65)
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
#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.
#105. To: nolu chan (#96)
ASSAULT.
#109. To: Deckard, Pierre Delecto (#105)
Former officer Dean DID NOT identify himself as a cop.
#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.
Replies to Comment # 109.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]