[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

China bites the dust (in 2020)

World Health Organization official slams Donald Trump’s ‘incoherent’ coronavirus response despite low number of US cases

National Debt Is $122 Trillion, Not $23 Trillion, Says Non-profit Group

Marxist Bernie Sanders Promotes Cuban Health Care – Filthy Institutions Not Even Pigs Would Enter –WITH PHOTOS

American Independent Party Submits List of Presidential Primary Candidates (including President Trump)

Ozzy Osbourne - Goodbye

Submission Training Begins Early

Read Matt Bracken Books Bleeding-edge dystopian thrillers, for readers who are tired of politically-correct fiction.

“Understanding the Corona Virus Hoax”

U.S. Marines Raised American Flag During Battle for Iwo Jima on This Day in 1945

'I'll fight them to the death': Judge Judy warns Bernie Bros that they don't have a chance at the presidency because she's ready to battle to get Mike Bloomberg in the White House

Sanders: Illegal Immigrants Are ‘Entitled’ to the Same Government Benefits as Citizens

Latest Polling Is Terrible News for Michael Bloomberg’s Chances of Taking Down Bernie

What happened to Sneakypete ?

Trump Boat Trolls Bernie Sanders Vallejo Rally

Why Bernie Sanders is just the beginning of an American turn to the left (BARF)

Clint Eastwood supported Trump in 2016 and now supports Bloomberg

Celebrate The 40-Year Anniversary Of The Miracle On Ice

This is the crowd not able to get in to TrumpÂ’s rallyÂ… In Blue State NevadaÂ…

Bloomberg Loses Ground Following Debate Debut in Las Vegas

Pick your Socialist President 2020

Here's a List of All the Stuff 'Nanny' Bloomberg Has Tried to Ban

Voter Data From Trump's Arizona Rally Should Scare The Hell Out Of Democrats

Shocking Video Shows Cop Execute Unarmed Grandpa for Walking Toward Him

A Michigan Police Task Force Is Playing Jurisdiction Games To Avoid Compensating an Innocent Man Cops Put in the Hospital

What is the 'boogaloo?' How online calls for a violent uprising are hitting the mainstream

Dealing with AGWs?

Movie Review: Vanishing Point (1971) : A libertarian perspective

Federal Judges Meeting Will Target Trump And Barr, Report Says

NSC adviser 'is to be reassigned' amid DC rumors SHE is the infamous 'Anonymous' behind anti-Trump NYTimes op-ed and book 'A Warning'

Off-Duty Cop Follows Woman Through Parking Lot, Attacks Her—Taxpayers Shell Out $125K

New Witness Corroborates Accusation That Mike Bloomberg Told Pregnant Employee to 'Kill It'

Cops Stop Veteran with PTSD for No Reason, Savagely Taser and Hit Him Over 30 Times

The Student Debt You Willingly Took On Is Not My Problem To Solve

Virginia: Gun Ban Bill Defeated!

Democrats fear Republican sabotage in key Senate race

Trump Supporters Are George W Bush Supporters LARPing As Ron Paul Supporters

US closes case against ex-FBI boss McCabe with no charges

Pelosi: A.G. Barr 'has deeply damaged the rule of law'

More Victims Discovered After Cop Caught on Video Planting Meth on Innocent People

PasTor Who Prophesized 4 Years Ago ... AbouT Kanye WesT’s ChrisTian Conversion Makes PredicTion --- AbouT PresidenT Trump’s Chances Of Re-elecTion

Senate Democrats queasy over Sanders as nomin

John Kelly Finally Lets Loose on Trump

Thursday, February 13, 2020 Trump breaks New Hampshire record for voter turnout for any incumbent president

Instrumental 9 year old guitarist Taj Farrant plays Chris Stapleton "Tennessee Whiskey" on his Gibson SG and Elixir strings Marshall amp

The Ten Most Destructive Americans of Eight Decades

Nancy Pelosi’s Staff Demands Takedown of ‘Deceptively Altered’ Video of Her SOTU Tantrum

OKC - A Conspiracy Theory

#FlashbackFriday when Vindman perjured himself and @RepBradWenstrup caught him.

Biden Calls Skeptical New Hampshire Voter ‘a Lying, Dog-Faced Pony Soldier’ (The dust-up came after the voter asked whether he can rebound from Iowa)


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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: 1107
Comments: 119

The Gun in Atatiana Jefferson’s Hand Will Be Far from Irrelevant

Jim Schutze
Dalas Observer
October 17, 2019 | 4:00am

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:

“(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.”

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

(1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 118.

#12. To: nolu chan, Vicomte13 (#0)

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.

This guy is a gungrabber. He's flying the gungrabber flag pretty openly despite his little attempt to portray himself as a lifelong pro-gun person.

I notice in the detective's report that the busybody neighbors called the cops because, despite the two vehicles being in the driveway, the front door and side door was open but the glass screen doors were closed.

And that is enough for cops to assume they should shoot first and ask questions later?

Send this badged idiot to prison for at least 5-10 years.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-21   0:44:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Tooconservative (#12)

I notice in the detective's report that the busybody neighbors called the cops because, despite the two vehicles being in the driveway, the front door and side door was open but the glass screen doors were closed.

And that is enough for cops to assume they should shoot first and ask questions later?

No. But that recitation left out the gun. You "forgot" the gun.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-21   12:39:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: nolu chan (#17)

No. But that recitation left out the gun. You "forgot" the gun.

It is entirely legal to have a gun in your own home.

If you are prowling around unannounced in someone's back yard in the middle of the night, then you are the one who should get shot, not the peaceful and law-abiding homeowner who is frightened by you trespassing on their property.

Unlike you, I'm not looking for some excuse to why this daft cop decided to blow away a homeowner for no reason at all. I only wish that she would have shot first.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-21   13:32:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Tooconservative (#19)

No. But that recitation left out the gun. You "forgot" the gun.

It is entirely legal to have a gun in your own home.

And if you are in your car approaching an intersection with the right of way, it is entirely legal for you to proceed, even if a tractor-trailer truck is approaching and not slowing down. Your estate can sue for damages and give you a first class send off.

It is perfectly legal for you to open carry in public where it is permitted. You may even open carry in stores that permit it. Put the gun in your hand and you have a problem. 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.

Your point that it was lawful for her to have a gun in her home is valid but irrelevant. If she was not going to shoot the other person with her gun, brandishing her weapon only served to get her dead.

The lawfulness of her weapon possession is irrelevant to the question of whether the officer's use of his weapon was criminal. Her pointing her gun out the window is relevant to the defense.

If you are prowling around unannounced in someone's back yard in the middle of the night, then you are the one who should get shot, not the peaceful and law-abiding homeowner who is frightened by you trespassing on their property.

ALL of the responding officers acted pursuant to an open structure call. They participated in an attempt to determine, from the outside, what was happening on the inside. Pursuant to protocol, they treated it as a potentially life-threatening situation.

None of the officers was trespassing.

Unlike you, I'm not looking for some excuse to why this daft cop decided to blow away a homeowner for no reason at all.

You are starting to sound like Matt Agorist. You again "forgot" the lady pointed her gun at the cop and did not respond to verbal command. Shame on you.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-21   23:12:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: nolu chan (#33)

And if you are in your car approaching an intersection with the right of way, it is entirely legal for you to proceed, even if a tractor-trailer truck is approaching and not slowing down. Your estate can sue for damages and give you a first class send off.

You're being dishonest, deliberately.

You know perfectly well that there is a huge difference under the law between publicly owned commons like a roadway and a private home under traditional castle doctrine.

If the woman was pointing the gun at a cop in public, he might arguable be justified in shooting her.

He instead skulked about unannounced outside her home, despite having two open doors where he could have knocked and announced his presence and resolved the situation. He instead prowled about outside the home when no one had even reported a prowler (but only open inner doors late at night). He alarmed the home's lawful resident, causing her to fear for her life and the safety of her nephew. When she picked up a gun to lawfully defend herself in her home from the alarming sight of an unannounced prowler in her backyard, he screamed something and shot her multiple times in only a few seconds.

That tape is going to bury him. And you're going to choke on it. Good.

The lawfulness of her weapon possession is irrelevant to the question of whether the officer's use of his weapon was criminal. Her pointing her gun out the window is relevant to the defense.

He chose to prowl unannounced on her property and, after he frightened her into picking up her gun, he shot her and killed her in front of her 8yo nephew, a scarring memory.

ALL of the responding officers acted pursuant to an open structure call. They participated in an attempt to determine, from the outside, what was happening on the inside. Pursuant to protocol, they treated it as a potentially life-threatening situation.

But they did not shoot the homeowner. Only one cop did that. Don't try to whitewash the criminal by equating the actions of those cops who properly did not blast a homeowner with this fool of a cop who just blasted away after he had frightened the homeowner so badly that she picked up a gun to defend her nephew and herself from a prowler inside her backyard in the middle of the night.

None of the officers was trespassing.

They were all trespassing and any jury is going to figure that out quickly, regardless of statutory language. The cops were not even responding to an emergency call summoning medical help or to stop a suspected crime in progress. They had a report of an open structure and walked directly past the the open front doors which were covered by closed screen doors. They made no attempt to enter or to announce themselves. If, as has been suggested, they believed a criminal was inside and they went into the backyard (where no alarm had been raised) then it is obvious that they intended to shoot someone through a window. And that is exactly what happened. They shot the homeowner through the window. So they show up, choose to prowl around in the dead of night unannounced and enter a dark backyard instead of just knocking on the door, scare the homeowner into grabbing her gun and then one of them kills the homeowner.

There was a dangerous criminal on the premises. It was the cop. And he's going to be convicted. I hope they execute him for it.

You again "forgot" the lady pointed her gun at the cop and did not respond to verbal command.

You are under no obligation whatsoever to obey commands screamed at you from outside your house in the middle of the night. The homeowner had no way of knowing who was screaming at her from the dark. The cop did not even try to identify himself as police because he had already started shooting. The laws that might otherwise shield a cop do not apply if the cop has not announced his presence and therefore his lawful authority to issue an order to disarm. Nor did he attempt to take cover or to determine the identity of his murder victim, the lawful dweller of the premises. He just yelled something and shot multiple times a second later. The timing of his yell and the gunfire following only a second later meant that almost no one could have responded to his command anyway since he was pulling his gun to shoot her as he yelled at her. The jury will rightly conclude that he had already decided to shoot her, no matter who she was, the moment he saw a gun. Or maybe the moment he saw a black person. She had no opportunity to see his police uniform in that dark backyard, nor to see his badge, nor did he claim to be police, nor did he announce his (entirely unrequested) presence on her property despite having multiple opportunities to do so just by knocking on the door.

Shame on you.

You're a complete disgrace and an embarrassment to LF.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-22   1:14:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: Tooconservative (#35)

You're being dishonest, deliberately.

You are being an idiot, deliberately. But at least you have torn the mask off being Too Conservative.

If the woman was pointing the gun at a cop in public, he might arguable be justified in shooting her.

Nah, he should just stand there until he is shot dead. /s

You know perfectly well that there is a huge difference under the law between publicly owned commons like a roadway and a private home under traditional castle doctrine.

The Castle Doctrine is irrelevant to the case. It is not about whether she acted lawfully. It is about whether the cop acted lawfully.

He instead skulked about unannounced outside her home, despite having two open doors where he could have knocked and announced his presence and resolved the situation.

The call to the responding officers was officially recorded as a burglary call. It is not protocol to knock on the door and call out, "Yoohoo, Mr. Burglar, are you in there?" That is a good way to get dead.

He instead skulked about unannounced outside her home, despite having two open doors where he could have knocked and announced his presence and resolved the situation. He instead prowled about outside the home when no one had even reported a prowler (but only open inner doors late at night). He alarmed the home's lawful resident, causing her to fear for her life and the safety of her nephew. When she picked up a gun to lawfully defend herself in her home from the alarming sight of an unannounced prowler in her backyard, he screamed something and shot her multiple times in only a few seconds.

That tape is going to bury him. And you're going to choke on it. Good.

You have a vivid imagination, and the writing skills of Matt Agorist. Your meandering mush is indistinguishable from the yellow journalism of The Free Thought Project.

He chose to prowl unannounced on her property and, after he frightened her into picking up her gun, he shot her and killed her in front of her 8yo nephew, a scarring memory.

He was in uniform, investigating a possible burglary in progress. He was not a prowler. When investigating a potential burglary in progress, cops do not announce their presence upon arrival.

ALL of the responding officers acted pursuant to an open structure call. They participated in an attempt to determine, from the outside, what was happening on the inside. Pursuant to protocol, they treated it as a potentially life-threatening situation.

But they did not shoot the homeowner. Only one cop did that. Don't try to whitewash the criminal by equating the actions of those cops who properly did not blast a homeowner with this fool of a cop who just blasted away after he had frightened the homeowner so badly that she picked up a gun to defend her nephew and herself from a prowler inside her backyard in the middle of the night.

ALL of the cops followed the protocol for responding to a report of a potential burglary. NONE followed the protocol for a welfare check. The documentation of the call, at the time of the call, reflect it to be a burglary.

Only ONE cop was right outside the window where Jefferson appeared with her gun. Only ONE cop observed the gun. Only ONE cop fired. He fired ONE shot.

None of the officers was trespassing.

They were all trespassing and any jury is going to figure that out quickly, regardless of statutory language.

Obviously, no prosecutor will argue that the cops were trespassing. They would find themselves sanctioned and before the state bar, and probably cause a mistrial.

The cops were not even responding to an emergency call summoning medical help or to stop a suspected crime in progress.

They responding to a suspected burglary as documented at the time. Had it been an emergency medical call, it may have gone to the FIRE DEPARTMENT, not the Police Department.

They had a report of an open structure and walked directly past the the open front doors which were covered by closed screen doors. They made no attempt to enter or to announce themselves.

They had a report of a suspected burglary, as documented. It was later classified as Open Structure in the arrest report.

In responded to a suspected burglary, it is not protocol to announce police presence upon arrival to see what shoots back.

If, as has been suggested, they believed a criminal was inside and they went into the backyard (where no alarm had been raised) then it is obvious that they intended to shoot someone through a window.

No Matt, they did not know whether a criminal was inside or not. That is what they were trying to determine.

It is not obvious that they intended to shoot anyone. When confronted by Jefferson at a window, gun in hand aimed out the window, at a cop in full uniform, and after he called out for her to show her hands, to raise her hands, the cop responded to the perceived threat and shot.

And that is exactly what happened. They shot the homeowner through the window.

No Matt. There is no they. There is a he. Officer Aaron Dean, the guy with the gun aimed at him; he shot.

So they show up, choose to prowl around in the dead of night unannounced and enter a dark backyard instead of just knocking on the door

No Matt. NOBODY prowled, or chose to prowl. No prosecutor will dare to make such a mischaracterization and find himself before the state licensing board.

The cops ALL followed protocol for responding to a burglary call.

There was a dangerous criminal on the premises. It was the cop. And he's going to be convicted. I hope they execute him for it.

No Matt. Jefferson acted lawfully, just not too intelligently. The cop is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

You are under no obligation whatsoever to obey commands screamed at you from outside your house in the middle of the night.

It is a lifestyle choice. She pulled out her gun, aimed it out the window in the direction of a fully uniformed cop, did not respond to verbal commands, and she is dead. She was in lawful possession of a gun. She is no longer in possession of a gun. She's dead.

The homeowner had no way of knowing who was screaming at her from the dark.

Don't go to a window and aim your gun at the unknown. That is a way to get oneself dead.

The cop did not even try to identify himself as police because he had already started shooting.

No Matt. He was in full uniform. He called twice for her to raise or show her hands. The entire confrontation took 3 or 4 seconds. She confronted the officer with deadly force.

No Matt. The officer had not already started shooting. The shooting involved one shot. The shooting started and ended in the smallest fraction of a second.

The laws that might otherwise shield a cop do not apply if the cop has not announced his presence and therefore his lawful authority to issue an order to disarm.

No Matt. You just made that up. It is complete and total bullshit. He had a gun pointed at him. Yet again, you "forget" about the gun.

Recall Officer Jeronimo Yanez and Philando Castile. The defense was that Officer Yanez "feared for his life." Acquitted of second-degree manslaughter and two counts of intentional discharge of a firearm that endangers safety

Nor did he attempt to take cover or to determine the identity of his murder victim, the lawful dweller of the premises.

He was not Scott Israel.

Yet again, you "forget" about the gun. There was a certain urgency. There was a deadly threat not only to Officer Dean, but to all the officers who could have been shot.

He just yelled something and shot multiple times a second later.

No Matt. A SINGLE SHOT was fired. He did not yell something. The exact audible words have been quoted. Matt, you are starting to sound like Ilhan Omar. The cop yelled something. She confronted him by aiming her gun out the window. He fired about 3 or 4 seconds after becoming aware, and after issuing two verbal commands to show her hands, to raise her hands.

he was pulling his gun to shoot her as he yelled at her.

Where did you find that information, Matt?

The jury will rightly conclude that he had already decided to shoot her, no matter who she was, the moment he saw a gun.

Such is directly contradicted by the 3- or 4-second delay to give verbal commands.

Or maybe the moment he saw a black person. She had no opportunity to see his police uniform in that dark backyard, nor to see his badge, nor did he claim to be police, nor did he announce his (entirely unrequested) presence on her property despite having multiple opportunities to do so just by knocking on the door.

No Matt. Maybe he saw a gun pointed out the window at him. Yet again, you "forget" about the gun she had pointed out the window in the direction of Officer Dean.

Matt, Matt, Matt. It is not burglary protocol for the police to announce their presence to a potential armed intruder. NONE of the police announced their presence or knocked on the door. Officer Dean had been on the force less than two years. The senior people there did not announce their presence or knock on the door. They responded to a report of burglary. ALL of them followed the protocol for the report given to them.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-22   15:44:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: nolu chan, Deckard, misterwhite (#60) (Edited)

ALL of the cops followed the protocol for responding to a report of a potential burglary. NONE followed the protocol for a welfare check. The documentation of the call, at the time of the call, reflect it to be a burglary.

Only ONE cop was right outside the window where Jefferson appeared with her gun. Only ONE cop observed the gun. Only ONE cop fired. He fired ONE shot.

I thought you kept bleating it was an "open structure" call.

It was reported to police on a non-emergency tip line as a welfare check. Someone at HQ in the 911 dispatcher's office dispatched the call and may or may not have used the phrase "open structure".

Not a burglary which is an allegation of a property crime, possibly by an armed criminal.

You're a liar. Police have stated repeatedly that it was an open structure call, not a burglary. They have stated this publicly and they have put it in writing.

In the PD's own video, it is clearly labeled as an open structure call. Since you seem to know so few facts about the case, I'll post the video again. Look at the beginning of the video starting at 00:00:06 and lasting for 13 seconds. Even you can read that fast.

As for your ridiculous time estimate of the verbal warning and the shot, I downloaded the video to check it closely playing at slow speed.

The killer cop shouted "Put your hands up, show me your hands".

He began to open his mouth to yell at 00:01:34:28 (28 thirtieths of a second after the 1 minute 34 second point in the video).
He started to yell the 'P' in "Put" at 00:01:35:00, .0666 seconds after he started to open his mouth.
His voiced trailed off after yelling "hands", going quiet at 00:01:36:06
The initial sound of the gunshot began at 00:01:36:11 when the sound spiked and distorted sharply.

From the beginning of the 'P' in "Put" (00:01:34:28) to the beginning of the gunshot sound (00:01:36:11) is 1 and 13/30ths seconds. Or 1.43333 seconds. And I am actually being generous in that measurement by a few thirthieths of a second.

The cop also, FWIW, started to vocalize before his brain decided what to say and he subvocalized something else, perhaps a grunt, that he didn't finish just as he shot the bullet that killed his victim. Not exactly calm and collected.

They responding to a suspected burglary as documented at the time.
They had a report of a suspected burglary, as documented.
The cops ALL followed protocol for responding to a burglary call.

They did not. Only the first two officers were present. The other two were just arriving when the shot was fired that killed that poor woman.

All I know is the official police evidence that has been shown. Not initial wild reports in the press. You can keep trying to lie and try to call it a "burglary" (based on a few wild initial reports immediately after the murder) but every official document we have seen labels it an "open structure" call.

Let me just remind you that police are not free to blast away at anyone, even a burglar, just because they're received a burglary call. It is their responsibility to determine if a crime is in progress. And it is their responsibility not to shoot anyone if it can be avoided. In particular, not to shoot a lawful resident who was defending her 8yo nephew from people who had opened a gate to enter her backyard.

BTW, opening a closed gate contributes to trespassing culpability under Texas statutes.

He was not Scott Israel.

You keep repeating this as though it means something. Scott Israel was the sheriff in the Parkland episode, not the school security guard. Not that it matters in this case in the slightest. Your grasp of facts and reality are slipping badly.

Such is directly contradicted by the 3- or 4-second delay to give verbal commands.

As I have documented using FCPX, a pro-level video editor, the time from the beginning of his yell to the beginning of the sound of his shot was no more than 1.43333 seconds. Not 3-4 seconds. And the local papers have consistently reported this as "little more than a second" and very similar phrases. You're just making up that 3-4 seconds because you're in such a copsucking tizzy. No fair examination of the video footage could render anything more than 1.5 second from the first sound he emits to the beginning of the sound of his gunfire (at which point the bullet would have already hit her).

It is not burglary protocol for the police to announce their presence to a potential armed intruder. NONE of the police announced their presence or knocked on the door. Officer Dean had been on the force less than two years. The senior people there did not announce their presence or knock on the door. They responded to a report of burglary.

You're obviously confused. Only two officers were present for the shooting: the killer cop and the second cop who was seen in the video, a female named Darch. She arrived first, him about a minute later as I understand it. She had an extra minute to size up the situation without becoming alarmed in any way. This is in the police report that she filed. The other officers did not arrive until minutes later when it was already understood that it was an unlawful killing and the officers arriving rendered first aid but were unable to save the victim's life.

The police chief has already made an official statement that the killer cop was in violation of PD policy and protocol in his conduct on the call. His violation of PD policy led directly to the victim's murder. The chief said this very clearly.

Interim Police Chief Ed Kraus released the officer’s name on Monday afternoon. He said Dean resigned from his position in the police department on Monday morning, ahead of Kraus’ meeting to fire him.

If Kraus had the opportunity to fire Dean, he said it would have been for multiple violations, including violating the department’s use-of-force procedures, unprofessional conduct and violating the de-escalation policy.

. . .

Dean was a commissioned as a licensed officer in April 2018 after completing the Fort Worth Police Academy on March 8, 2018, according to a report from the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement.

. . .

Kraus said the other officer who was with Dean at the time of the shooting is being treated as a witness.

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. She had one more year of experience over the killer cop. And she is being considered a witness for the prosecution, not the defense. She will testify against him.

The whole thing started with a call from a neighbor who lives in a house that does not exist. Is that your story, and are you sticking with it? The initial information called into police was complete crap?

I'm saying that the locations of the brother/sister are not what the public has been led to believe by press reports. Another issue is where they parked the two cop cars "around the corner".

As for your endless bleating of "burglary", I don't hear it in the audio that has been released. This was apparently the audio from the 3rd or 4th cops just arriving at the house. No one said "burglary" or "open structure". The cop being dispatched responded seconds later with "shots fired, shots fired", meaning he was close enough to hear the shot but was not yet on-scene.

Listen for yourself. Where does anyone tell this cop that it is a burglary or an open structure?

I have not yet found any dispatch call to Darch or to the killer cop yet.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-22   19:52:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite (#72)

As for your ridiculous time estimate of the verbal warning and the shot, I downloaded the video to check it closely playing at slow speed.

The killer cop shouted "Put your hands up, show me your hands".

He began to open his mouth to yell at 00:01:34:28 (28 thirtieths of a second after the 1 minute 34 second point in the video).

He started to yell the 'P' in "Put" at 00:01:35:00, .0666 seconds after he started to open his mouth.

His voiced trailed off after yelling "hands", going quiet at 00:01:36:06

The initial sound of the gunshot began at 00:01:36:11 when the sound spiked and distorted sharply.

From the beginning of the 'P' in "Put" (00:01:34:28) to the beginning of the gunshot sound (00:01:36:11) is 1 and 13/30ths seconds. Or 1.43333 seconds. And I am actually being generous in that measurement by a few thirthieths (sic) of a second.

Damn Matt. Only an asshole of gigantic proportions could claim to have worked out the time to the one hundred thousandth of a second. This claim features the inescapable illogic of the jackass who fantasized about the distance of the Las Vegas shooting using Google Sketch.

The camera shoots 30 frames per second. Your calculation of 1.43333 seconds is bullshit, just as the Las Vegas numbers were bullshit. Using sampling every 1/30th of a second, and calculating to the hundred thousandth of a second is scientific bullshit. The variance of the camera between frames would be greater than 1/100000 of a second. Moreover, the sampling rate does not permit your fantastic calculation. You wasted your time. Don't waste my time, and every else's time with your bullshit.

A purported claim of a time interval calculated down to the 1/100,000th of a second qualifies as ridiculous, make believe bullshit.

As for your ridiculous time estimate of the verbal warning and the shot,

Of course, I made NO ESTIMATE of the time between the verbal warning and the shot. I linked, cited and quoted a news report from the Dallas News.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2019/10/13/questions-and-outrage-after-fort-worth-officer-fatally-shoots-28-year-old-woman-in-her-home/

Questions and outrage after Fort Worth officer fatally shoots 28-year-old woman in her home

By Dana Branham
DallasNews.com
7:52 PM on Oct 13, 2019

[excerpt]

In body-camera footage released Saturday, the officer who shot Jefferson is seen walking around the backyard of the home.

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.

I recall seeing a four-second estimate, but I went with the shorter one.

It is a non-specific estimate qualified with the word about. It does not make believe it is accurate to the 1/100,000th of a second.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-23   16:00:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#116. To: Tooconservative (#92)

Damn Matt. Only an asshole of gigantic proportions could claim to have worked out the time to the one hundred thousandth of a second. This claim features the inescapable illogic of the jackass who fantasized about the distance of the Las Vegas shooting using Google Sketch.

Looks like nolu sham is calling you and me both conspiracy freaks Matt.

Even just watching and listening to the video, it's clear that Miss Jefferson did not have any chance of responding before she was murdered.

Deckard  posted on  2019-10-26   14:49:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#118. To: Deckard (#116)

Looks like nolu sham is calling you and me both conspiracy freaks Matt.

Well, Matt, speaking strictly as a fellow-Matt, I have to agree with your measured conclusion.

Maybe we should start an organization for mutual support, the Society Of Matts.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-28   9:30:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 118.

#119. To: Tooconservative (#118)

https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=60425

When Atatiana Jefferson Pickup Up Her Gun, Officer Dean's Requirement to Issue a Warning of Attempt to Deescalate Disappeared

nolu chan
October 28, 2019

Regarding Use-of-Force, the Fort Worth PD adopted PERF ICAT training in 2018. While it requires issuance of a warning and attempting deescalation before using lethal force, it explicitly does not apply to situations where the subject is armed with a gun.

A subject with a firearm is treated differently from all other situations. In such situation, the Fort Worth PD Use-of-Force policy does not require the officer to issue a warning, or to attempt deescalation, prior to using lethal force.

Let us review the Use of Force policy of the Fort Worth PD, beginning with PERF ICAT, adopted in January 2018, and proceeding to the general Forth Worth PD policy of 2017 as reviewed by The Use of Force Project.

- - - - - - - - - -

PERF ICAT TRAINING

Police Executive Research Forum

Integrating Communications, Assessment and Tactics De-escalation Training

http://fortworthtexas.gov/news/2018/01/police-perf-training/

FWPD completes training that emphasizes de-escalation tactics

Posted Jan. 31, 2018

Every officer in the Fort Worth Police Department has completed training that encourages them to use a new way of thinking when it comes to crisis intervention, communication and tactics.

The training is called PERF ICAT— Police Executive Research Forum Integrating Communications, Assessment and Tactics De-escalation Training. The nationally-recognized training educates officers on the skills, knowledge and confidence needed to manage non-firearm threats, influence behavioral changes and gain voluntary compliance whenever possible. The training is a key to the department’s mission to safeguard the lives of residents and enhance public safety through building trust with the community.

The PD has recently made changes to how officers approach use-of-force situations and amended policies to incorporate de-escalation tactics. Biannual in-service training and training for new recruits have been modified to provide more tools to resolve police encounters that emphasize the safety of residents and officers.

The PD has invited city officials and members of the Chief’s Advisory Board, Policy Advisory Committee, and the Race and Culture Task Force to an ICAT training session so they can realize what is expected of officers and have a better understanding of the situations officers face each day.

Well, that sounded impressive. However, PERF ICAT training mainly benefits Officer Dean and the defense.

https://www.policeforum.org/about-icat

About ICAT

Integrating Communications, Assessment, and Tactics, or ICAT, is a use-of-force Training Guide designed to fill a critical gap in training police officers in how to respond to volatile situations in which subjects are behaving erratically and often dangerously but do not possess a firearm. The Training Guide includes model lesson plans and support materials (including Power Point presentations, videos, and other resources) in the key areas of decision-making, crisis recognition and response, tactical communications and negotiations, and operational safety tactics. ICAT then integrates these skills and provides opportunities to practice them through video case studies and scenario-based training exercises.

Read the ICAT Mission Statement and Training Goals

Four Areas of Focus

The ICAT Training Guide focuses on four key areas:

Patrol officer response. In almost every situation where a subject is behaving erratically (often because of mental illness or behavioral crisis), it is a patrol officer—a “beat cop”—who is the first to respond. ICAT provides these officers with the skills and options needed to safely and effectively manage these encounters, especially in the critical first few moments after officers arrive. In many instances, the goal is for the first responding officers to buy enough time so that additional, specialized resources can get to the scene to support a safe and peaceful resolution.

Non-firearms incidents. ICAT focuses on those critical incidents in which the subject is unarmed or armed with a weapon other than a firearm (such as a knife, baseball bat, rocks, or other blunt instrument). Unlike situations in which the subject has a firearm and officers have few options besides lethal force, these non-firearms incidents often present officers with time and opportunity to consider a range of responses. Helping officers safely and effectively manage these types of encounters is the focus of ICAT.

Integration of crisis recognition/intervention, communications, and tactics. In recent years, a growing number of police agencies have been providing their officers with specialized training on how to interact with persons who are in crisis because of mental health issues or other factors. ICAT builds on those efforts by integrating communications and tactical skills with crisis intervention approaches. This integrated approach is presented in the context of a Critical Decision-Making Model that helps patrol officers develop and think through their options in these challenging non-firearms incidents.

Officer safety and wellness. ICAT is centered on PERF’s Guiding Principle #1: “The sanctity of human life should be at the heart of everything an agency does.” The Training Guide focuses on protecting officers from both physical threats and emotional harm. This is accomplished by equipping officers with the tools, techniques and skills needed to slow down some situations and pursue options for safely resolving them. The goal is to help officers avoid reaching the point where their lives or the lives of others become endangered and the officers have no choice but to use lethal force.

Read How the ICAT Training Guide Was Created

Flexible and Adaptable

PERF encourages police agencies and academies to be creative in how they choose to use the ICAT Training Guide.

  • Some may decide to present ICAT as a stand-alone training program, for recruit or in-service training, or both.

  • Other agencies may choose to incorporate the ICAT training modules into existing programs on de-escalation, tactical communications or crisis intervention.

  • Still other agencies may want to take elements of individual modules and create their own lesson plans that are tailored for their agencies and communities.

  • And because many skills (such as tactical communications) are perishable and need to be reinforced and practiced on a regular basis, some agencies may choose to include elements of ICAT in their roll call or team training exercises.

ICAT is designed to be flexible enough to accommodate these and other approaches. However, it is critical that whatever approach is used, the agency or academy focus on the integration of skills, and not present the material in training “silos.” This focus on integration is what makes ICAT unique.

PERF ICAT training does not include subjects with a firearm. Shit, that looked so promising too. Introduce a firearm into the equation and PERF ICAT goes out the window. Introduce a firearm and PERF ICAT has no application whatever. Incidents with firearms are subject to a very different policy.

Repeated for emphasis.

Non-firearms incidents. ICAT focuses on those critical incidents in which the subject is unarmed or armed with a weapon other than a firearm (such as a knife, baseball bat, rocks, or other blunt instrument). Unlike situations in which the subject has a firearm and officers have few options besides lethal force, these non-firearms incidents often present officers with time and opportunity to consider a range of responses.

PERF ICAT redounds to the benefit of the defense of Officer Dean as it makes clear that asituation with a subject armed with a firearm is handled differently from all the other situations, and the officers have few options besides lethal force.

- - - - - - - - - -

FORT WORTH PD USE OF FORCE POLICY AS REVIEWED BY THE USE OF FORCE PROJECT

http://useofforceproject.org/#review

We reviewed the use of force policies of America's 100 largest city police departments to determine whether they include meaningful protections against police violence. Click the boxes below to view details for each policy.

Download the Report

Read the Full Study

[...]

Below is the use of force policy, including the use of deadly force on a subject armed with a firearm, for Forth Worth as documented by the above review of the Use of Force Project.

- - - - - - - - - -

Fort Worth

Year of most recent policy 2017

Requires De-Escalation:

Does the policy require officers to de-escalate situations, when possible?

• "When safely possible, an officer shall use de-escalation techniques consistent with department training whenever possible and appropriate before resorting to force and to reduce the need for force.”

Bans Chokeholds and Strangleholds:

Are chokeholds and strangleholds Gncluding carotid restraints) explicitly prohibited, except in situations where deadly force is authorized?

• "Officers are prohibited from using choke holds and other types of neck-restrain ing tech niques except when protecting them selves or others against an imminent threat of serious bodily and death."

Duty to Intervene:

Are officers required to intervene when witnessing another officer using excessive force?

• "Officers have the duty to intervene when observing another officer using force that is beyond that which is objectively reasonable under the circumstances."

Requires Warning Before Shooting:

Are officers required to give a verbal warning, when possible, before shooting someone?

• "If not already known by the subject to be detained, arrested, or searched, officers should, if reasonable, make clear their intent to detain, arrest or search the subject. When practicable, officers will identify themselves as a peace officer before using force"

Restricts Shooting at Moving Vehicles:

Are officers prohibited from shooting at people in moving vehicles unless the subject presents a separate deadly threat other than the vehicle itself?

• 4. Officers shall not fire a weapon into a moving vehicle or at its occupant(s) unless the occupant(s) are using deadly force against the officer or another person present, by means other than the vehicle.

• 5. Officers shall not place themselves in the path of a moving vehicle in a manner which may lead to the use of deadly force. If a confrontation with a moving vehicle does occur, officers shall move out of the path of the vehicle."

Requires Comprehensive Reporting:

Are all uses of force required to be reported, including the pointing of a firearm at a civilian?

Pointing a weapon at a civilian is not required to be reported.

Requires Exhaust All Other Means Before Shooting:

Are officers required to exhaust all other reasonable alternatives before resorting to deadly force?

Officers not required to exhaust other reasonable means before resorting to deadly force.

"Under no circumstances will the force used by an officer be greater than necessary to make an arrest or a detention or to protect oneself or another, nor will the force be used longer than necessary to subdue the suspect, and deadly force shall not be used except as specifically provided in this directive."

The use of deadly force is authorized only when it is necessary for officers to protect themselves or others from an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury.”

Has Use of Force Continuum:

Is a Force Continuum or Matrix included in the Policy, defining the types of force/weapons that can be used to respond to specific types of resistance?

Yes.

- - - - - - - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-28 11:57:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 118.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com