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: 32876
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
Comments (1-24) not displayed.
.
.
.
#25. To: misterwhite (#21)
She didn't shoot. The cop did.
And the rope they'll hang him with is his own cop-cam.
She didn't shoot because the cop did. Self defense.
Sure you did. In post #19 you said, "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"
Now it's a racial shooting? Meaning the cop wouldn't have shot if the person was Mexican? Or white? Or Asian?
He was called to investigate a possible home invasion where the intruder could be armed and still be inside. I'm guessing he was saying exactly the same th thing thing to himself -- "I shouldn't be here. I should be at home watching TV."
Are you suggesting that a homeowner has to first verify that a prowler is not a cop who has deliberately chosen not to announce themselves and then - and only then - are they entitled to pick up a firearm to defend themselves inside their own home? You have a very twisted notion of the right to self-defense in this country. Soon a jury in Texas will make it much clearer for you. This ex-cop is probably going to get 15 years. They won't let him off as easy as they did Guyger.
At some point, people will not accept a cop saying "Oh, I saw a nigger and I was frightened so I shot her full of holes with no regard for anyone else in the house." That is not a public safety officer. That's a public menace with a badge. And he will be held accountable for murdering this poor woman in her own home.
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. 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. 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.
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.
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. 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. 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. 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 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. You're a complete disgrace and an embarrassment to LF.
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.
One more, on the gun that is shown very very briefly in the cop-cam footage. It's #FakeVideo. They edited it. “The images released showing the gun inside Ms. Jefferson’s home… the gun was irrelevant,” Price said. “She was in her own home caring for her 8-year-old nephew.” Kraus agreed that in hindsight, showing the weapon in the bodycam footage video was the wrong thing to do. He said they will review why they added that to the footage and when it is and is not appropriate. The PD tried to fake a cop-cam video and put a weapon in it. Gee, I wonder what the jury will think of that. You can expect the defense will call expert witnesses and also call the PD employees tasked with inserting that bogus footage of the gun. I thought it looked hokey the moment I saw it. It looks wrong, like an amateurish fake video made by teens on YouBoob. The window that he shot through to murder this woman. Looks like he shot her in the face. Those autopsy photos will be brutal:
I see that folks here have taken the usual politically-rooted stance. The pro-cop orthodoxy reminds of of the “Church cannot sin” argument of the Catholics of old. That mindset can hold the line, for awhile, but in time tge sins of the Church, and the violence of the cops, accumulates until people walk away from support. With the Church, that has meant empty pews and dwindling coffers. For the police, that means juries easing to accord them the presumption of truthfulness. In the long run, neither the Church, nor the cops, nor the Communists, nor the rich, can stiff arm the people-at-large forever.
The cop-cams are starting to make a big difference. People have long defaulted to taking the cops' word for it in these situations. That is starting to change as cop-cams become required equipment for cops on duty in the major cities. When both prosecutors and juries can see the wrongdoing for themselves, things change. There were many instances where prosecutors and mayors had, in previous years, wanted to try and convict a cop for murder in an egregious case but the jurors wouldn't convict (which meant you then had a mayor and D.A. that the cops hated and rejected). When jurors see it themselves on cop-cam, the juries are a lot more willing to convict a cop. And the country was ready for a change. Small cheap cop-cams, based on cellphone technology, are making a huge difference in police accountability, even more than the cops starting to use dashcams in their patrol cars. This largely spells the end of the old he-says-he-says where the cops win every single time no matter what because if juries are asked to choose between taking the word of a hood or a cop, they always will pick the cop, 100% of the time. We also see more cities with mayors, police chiefs, prosecutors that are unwilling to try to pull the old get-out-of-jail-free routine for any accused cops, no matter how blatant their crimes. That's the biggest single change we've seen in recent years. In this case, the cop-cam will convict the murderer. And the police chiefs play a big role in refusing to provide cover for killer cops. They'll fire them, make damaging public statements about them, do real investigations of them, etc. Juries, prosecutors, police chiefs and mayors are changing substantially in the last few years on this topic. The chiefs don't like this sea-change but they are between a rock and a hard place and, when push comes to shove, they no longer want to take the heat for idiots with badges who shoot up the public for no good reason. And the average cop who does follow policy, risking their lives, is no longer willing to help carry water for the killer cops. They just won't do it. The thin blue line is eroding. The bail was $200K. That's a fairly serious amount. And the only charge that I've seen so far is murder. I don't find any mention of a manslaughter-type charge at all. That lone charge did pretty much guarantee the high bail the court imposed. I suppose they might file additional charges by trial time but I'm not sure. If the prosecutor is gutsy enough, he'll stay with murder or nothing and dump the responsibility for that in the jury's lap. BTW, both cop and victim had science backgrounds. She had worked for a university and (I think) majored in chemistry then switched to biology with a pre-med minor. The cop had a physics degree circa 2011, albeit from a cow-college. As you are aware, real physicists don't graduate from colleges that have serious football teams.
Is this Adam Schiff reading for the Congressional Record? The officer was called to the scene to investigate an open door and lights on at 2:00am. Could be be be anything. When he saw a gun pointed at him through the window, he reacted. I don't think he saw "black" or "woman" … he saw a gun pointed at his face. Now, did she give him any warning? Did she say, "Go away. I have a gun"?
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.
At that point, was she in fear for her life?
Well, she had a concealed weapon so I assume she, as a responsible gun owner, took a concealed carry course in order to understand the laws of her state? Sure she did. If she had, she would have been taught the concept of "meeting force with force". If someone pushes you, you can't shoot him. Now that seems obvious to everyone ... except this woman. She sees a guy outside her window and points her gun at him, prepared to shoot? WTF? I guarantee you, you point a weapon at anyone, anytime, anywhere, be prepared for them to meet force with force. She fucked up and paid the price. If she had time to go to her purse, get the gun, then go to the window, she had time to exit the room with her nephew and call 911.
Yep. The other person is allowed to meet force with force. Good article.
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.
Are you going to stoop to suggesting that she pulled her CCW gun from her purse solely because she thought she might have a chance to shoot a cop through her bedroom window at her mother's house (where she was staying to help her mother who was in hospital due to illness and to care for her nephew)? Have you no shame?
That depends on the state, as we have seen over and over. Don't assume that Texas laws or CCW training includes any particular element just because your state does. The devil is always in the details on these CCW laws even in states that offer reciprocity to other states' CCW laws. So if a cop ever pulls his weapon for any reason, then he is fully justified and expected to kill anyone in the general vicinity if he has a sudden bout of fraidy-cop syndrome? Obviously, you're twisting conventional CCW doctrine. Like the Boy Scouts, their rule is preparedness and survival. Police are not CCW holders. They have badges and state authority. They answer to a much higher legal standard than civilians who may or may not have CCW permits and concealed handguns. Be patient. Soon enough, a Texas judge and jury will make it very clear to you. Again. You're despicable. A moral leper. And nolu is no better.
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.
I don't know why she did it. I know I wouldn't have. If I had to guess, I'd say she did it to intimidate the person outside. Or to impress her nephew.
Yeah. Uh-huh. You got it. That's who I was referring to.
Then you better hope we're not on the jury.
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — A woman and her five-year-old godson were terrified when a man pointed a handgun at them as they drove down Frayser Boulevard on Sunday. According to the police report, Alphonso McCracken pointed a handgun at the woman as he drove by her. The woman called 911 and gave the dispatcher a description of the man and his car. The man was spotted in just a few minutes and was pulled over by police. Officers said the suspect gave officers permission to search his car and that's when they found a gun in the glove box. The victim positively identified McCracken as the suspect. He was arrested and charged with two counts of aggravated assault. I sure do hope you don't own a gun. Your total ignorance of the law will end up getting you killed or thrown in jail.
Let's look at just one state's definition of assault and how it applied to a cop. Warning: the video below is graphic and contains profane language. "I Thought I Was Going to Die Right There." As you can see in the video, Santiago holds the gun to William Cunningham's head, while ordering him to get back in a car. At one point, Santiago even goads Cunningham by yelling, "I dare you to f***ing fight me, son." The encounter allegedly began when Cunningham's cousin dropped him off at his house. Santiago pulled up in his cruiser and told the men they were parked illegally, then pulled his gun on Cunningham when he tried to walk into his house. Santiago was convicted on four counts: first-degree assault, second-degree assault, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and malfeasance in office. The use of a firearm charge carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence, and prosecutors said Santiago could be sentenced to a term of up to 45 years. Although state laws on assault can vary, they are generally defined as an attempt to injure to someone else, and in some circumstances can include threats or threatening behavior. "I'm Thankful Justice Was Served." Even more egregious than what is shown on the video is Santiago's alleged motivation. Prince George's County State's Attorney Angela D. Alsobrooks noted that Santiago had two friends from New Jersey riding with him in his police car, saying, "We think, unfortunately, what happened is that he was showing off for his friends." Cunningham and other witnesses told investigators that Santiago allegedly threatened him before the video began, telling him, "We're PG police, and we shoot people." Despite his conviction, Santiago remains on the force, although the Prince George's County police chief condemned the officer's actions and said he recommended that the department fire him. So you agree then that this cop belongs in prison for 5 years for pulling his gun and pointing it? But you also think that he should have shot the man over illegal parking if he even had to pull out his gun at all? How do you reconcile these two ideas? How the hell do you live with yourself?
You two are a vanishingly small minority who cravenly worship any exercise of police violence. Your time is up, bucko.
Apples and oranges.
I say pointing a gun is assault, you say I'm full of it, then you post an article where a cop pointed a gun and was charged with assault. Did you forget your original position?
No but you demonstrably did so. And that is not my fault. My first response was: "That depends on the state, as we have seen over and over. Don't assume that Texas laws or CCW training includes any particular element just because your state does. The devil is always in the details on these CCW laws even in states that offer reciprocity to other states' CCW laws."
Yes, to you it is apples and oranges when anyone suggests that cops are as subject to the laws they enforce as anyone else. The entire notion is foreign to you, hateful even.
You are being an idiot, deliberately. But at least you have torn the mask off being Too Conservative. Nah, he should just stand there until he is shot dead. /s The Castle Doctrine is irrelevant to the case. It is not about whether she acted lawfully. It is about whether the cop acted lawfully. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. No Matt. There is no they. There is a he. Officer Aaron Dean, the guy with the gun aimed at him; he shot. 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. No Matt. Jefferson acted lawfully, just not too intelligently. The cop is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. 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. Don't go to a window and aim your gun at the unknown. That is a way to get oneself dead. 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. 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 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. 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. Where did you find that information, Matt? Such is directly contradicted by the 3- or 4-second delay to give verbal commands. 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.
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. No Matt. The jury will see the written documentation that it was recorded as a burglary and reported to the responding officers as a burglary, and appears in the arrest warrant as an open structure. It will be IMPOSSIBLE to show that the officers were aware of, or responding to, a call for a welfare check. The relevant information is what the dispatcher relayed to the officers. Should that information be inaccurate, it is evidence for a civil trial against the city. It would be irrelevant to the actions of Officer Dean who could not possibly have known what was said on the call from the neighbor. If you can make the case that the jury pool has been thoroughly poisoned, the defense can make the case for a removal of the case to a non-poisoned venue. If there is no non-poisoned venue, a jury cannot be seated. “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. Whatever you and Google say, Matt. 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? 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. I may be an idiot Matt, but your genius is dead. No Matt, I'm not fine with YOUR idiotic notion of citizens doing the quickdraw to shoot out of windows at anyone in their backyard at night, cop or burglar". Nor am I fine with the the brain dead idea of pulling a gun and presenting oneself at a window, aiming the gun out the window. That is one way to get dead, especially if you shoot second or not at all. No Matt. NONE of the officers announced their presence. He was the junior officer, on the job less than two years. He followed the same protocol as did ALL the other senior officers. It was a burglary call from the dispatcher, and there was the potential for an armed intruder inside. Cite and quote the statute. You made that up. It is complete, total, utter bullshit. Police do not report to a suspected burglary in progress with their siren and lights on. In any case, the junior officer does not make that call. The senior officer does not purposely try to endanger the lives of the junior officers. He and all the others were in full uniform. He did not reach for his badge. He presented his gun. He's alive. She's dead. The jury will hear the recorded call. What will they hear? Assuming they hear the tape, they will hear not a word said to Officer Dean or any of the other responding officers. There is no chance whatsoever that they had any knowledge of the words spoken on the incoming call. It is totally irrelevant to determining culpability of Officer Dean. It is potentially evidence for a civil case against the city. "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. No Matt, that's not the way it works. It will be the way the judge decides. If you don't like that, you can appeal. No Matt, they will hear what is on the tape. If he did not say "welfare check" or "wellness check," they will not hear that. https://people.com/crime/officer-shot-atatiana-jefferson-wasnt-doing-wellness-check/ “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. “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.” There is not a mumbling word there about a wellness check. It is a report of open doors. It was documented as burglary and characterized in the subsequent arrest warrant as open structure. No Matt. You just made that shit up. Repeating that bullshit endlessly does not make it true. The contemporary documentation says burglary and the later arrest warrant reads open structure. Quotes from the audio tape show no mention of any wellness check. It was received as a burglary call. It is irrelevant to the criminal case what the neighbor may have said or not said. It was impossible for Aaron Dean to know what was said by the neighbor. He and the other cops responded to a dispatch report for a burglary. No Matt, it doesn't. But a gun aimed at an officer by a person who does not respond to verbal commands to show their hands or put their hands up is what you are attempting to distract from. She was shot because she aimed a gun at a uniformed officer and failed to respond to verbal commands. A gun aimed at the officer creates more than a suspicion of a clear and present deadly threat. Alleged negligence or incompetence have not been established. Indeed. Officer Dean appears to have been competent with a gun. He took one shot, and one shot only. 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. No Matt. More imaginary bullshit. Apparently you do not read very well. From the murder warrant for the arrest of Officer Dean: - - - - - - - - - - No, Matt. His partner did not see a gun. Not seeing a gun is not evidence that there was no gun. The partner "could only see Jefferson's face." There is no allegation that Jefferson held the gun with her face. The nephew's statement removes all doubt. He was in the room. From the murder warrant for the arrest of Officer Dean: Pack in your fantastic theory that there was no gun. The jury will consider what was seen. It will not consider not seeing a gun when the person could only see the face as evidence that there was no gun. 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. Matt, Matt, Matt. If they have his partner's testimony, when was the trial? What did she see besides a face? How do the photos prove negligence? How do the photos prove recklessness? The Jefferson was shot, and that Dean shot her will not be contested. No Matt, nobody was prowling in the night. Announcing their presence would have gone against protocol for a burglary response. The jury will be instructed not to follow the case from any source outside the court, and to not use any information from the press in their deliberations. Moreover, your point is irrelevant as nobody is attempting to assign any wrong to the unfortunate homeowner. Matt, just wait and there may be a trial to determine whether she was murdered. All irrelevant. As the judge in the Philandro Castile case wrote to the jury: The judge told jurors he was not providing his own opinion of St. Anthony officer Jeronimo Yanez’s actions during the fatal traffic stop last July in the St. Paul suburb of Falcon Heights, but wanted to convey that their verdict “was fully supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence and the law you were obligated to apply.” http://www.startribune.com/judge-pens-letter-of-support-to-jurors-in-yanez-trial/432354143/ “You were simply asked to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether a crime had been committed.” No Matt, you are just full of shit. Just because Jefferson did no legal wrong would not show that Officer Dean committed a crime. If the cop is acquitted, it would not mean Jefferson did any legal wrong. No Matt. You're caught bullshitting again. "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 will testify she could only see Jefferson's face and that she saw no gun. She cannot testify that there was no gun. Her limited view did not allow for her to see the gun. The nephew's statement removes all doubt. He was in the room. From the murder warrant for the arrest of Officer Dean: Pack in your fantastic theory that there was no gun. That works against the killer cop. That works for the officer. No testimony will be permitted about his exercising his Fifth Amendment rights. It is cause for a mistrial to make that claim in court, and will see the attorney who makes it before the state bar. If he invoked his Fifth Amendment right to testify at trial, would you also find that evidence of guilt? Matt, even a retard could see through your river of bullshit. Matt, you could at least stop spinning your bullshit while asking that despicable question. There will be a trial to see if she was murdered, or whether looking at the business end of a gun, while responding to a burglary call, justified Officer Dean's use of deadly force. Whether Jefferson was black, white, or yellow is irrelevant to me and to the law.
It's #FakeVideo. They edited it. And the kill shot was fired from the grassy knoll. “The images released showing the gun inside Ms. Jefferson’s home… the gun was irrelevant,” Price said. “She was in her own home caring for her 8-year-old nephew.” Kraus agreed that in hindsight, showing the weapon in the bodycam footage video was the wrong thing to do. He said they will review why they added that to the footage and when it is and is not appropriate. The PD tried to fake a cop-cam video and put a weapon in it. Gee, I wonder what the jury will think of that. You can expect the defense will call expert witnesses and also call the PD employees tasked with inserting that bogus footage of the gun. Matt, you incredible shithead. The weapon was in the load of bodycam footage. The portion of footage with the weapon should not have been included in the press release. They will review why that portion of the footage was included with the release. Nobody claimed the footage was bogus or that a gun was added to it. Matt, were you the guy on the grassy knoll? Did you learn your tradecraft under Brennan or Clapper?
Matt, Matt, Matt. He was a cop in full uniform with a flashlight. https://people.com/crime/officer-shot-atatiana-jefferson-wasnt-doing-wellness-check/ What person assumes "darkened concealment" with a flashlight to lead the way? And you give your new unfortunate victim a Darwin award. Give yourself a Godwin's Law award for your Hitler reference.
Matt. You forgot to ping me to your insult. First Hitler, and now this. Oh, the humanity. It appears TFTP is on the job.
[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.
Comments (66 - 119) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestBut the homeowner is entitled to execute anyone without consequences if they are snooping around outside the window?
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
He killed himself when he killed her - and that's justice.
#27. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
She didn't shoot. The cop did.
#28. To: Tooconservative (#23)
But the homeowner is entitled to execute anyone without consequences if they are snooping around outside the window?
I said no such thing.
#29. To: Tooconservative (#23)
I think a jury and a judge are going to educate you and nolu about what they think about another black person in their own home
#30. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
He should not have been there at all.
#31. To: misterwhite (#28)
Sure you did. In post #19 you said, "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"
#32. To: misterwhite (#29)
Now it's a racial shooting? Meaning the cop wouldn't have shot if the person was Mexican? Or white? Or Asian?
#33. To: Tooconservative (#19)
No. But that recitation left out the gun. You "forgot" the gun.
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.
#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?
#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.
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.
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.
You again "forgot" the lady pointed her gun at the cop and did not respond to verbal command.
Shame on you.
#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.
#37. To: nolu chan (#34)
(Edited)
During Monday’s press conference, Fort Worth Mayor Betsy Price said that displaying the gun in the bodycam footage was unnecessary.
#38. To: Tooconservative (#37)
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
(Edited)
#40. To: Tooconservative (#32)
"Oh, I saw a nigger and I was frightened so I shot her full of holes with no regard for anyone else in the house."
#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.
#42. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
She was in her house. She heard a noise. She was frightened.
#43. To: Tooconservative (#31)
Are you suggesting that a homeowner has to first verify that a prowler is not a cop who has deliberately chosen not to announce themselves and then - and only then - are they entitled to pick up a firearm to defend themselves inside their own home?
#44. To: nolu chan (#33)
If she was not going to shoot the other person with her gun, brandishing her weapon only served to get her dead.
#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.”
#46. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#42)
At that point, was she in fear for her life?
#47. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#43)
If she had, she would have been taught the concept of "meeting force with force". If someone pushes you, you can't shoot him.
I guarantee you, you point a weapon at anyone, anytime, anywhere, be prepared for them to meet force with force.
She fucked up and paid the price.
#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.
#50. To: Tooconservative (#46)
Are you going to stoop to suggesting that she pulled her CCW gun from her purse solely because she thought she might have a chance to shoot a cop through her bedroom window
#51. To: Tooconservative (#47)
So if a cop ever pulls his weapon for any reason ...
#52. To: Tooconservative (#47)
(Edited)
You're despicable. A moral leper. And nolu is no better.
#53. To: Tooconservative (#49)
It is not. You're a piss-poor armchair lawyer. Maybe you should leave that end of it to nolu.
#54. To: misterwhite, nolu chan, Deckard (#48)
Despite his conviction, the cop was allowed to continue policing until he was sentenced. The cop was subsequently fired and received a 5-year prison term in 2016. Even Matt Agorist could have told you that. Maybe Deckard can find some nice articles on the case for you and nolu to enjoy. FindLaw: Police Officer Convicted of Assault for Pointing Gun at Man's Head, 12/7/2015 Prince George's County Police Officer Jenchesky Santiago was convicted of first-degree assault and three other charges for pointing and holding his gun in a black man's face. The incident occurred in Bowie, Maryland in May 2014, although officials only now released video of the incident in conjunction with Santiago's criminal conviction.
#55. To: misterwhite (#52)
Then you better hope we're not on the jury.
#56. To: Tooconservative (#54)
So you agree then that this cop belongs in prison for 5 years for pulling his gun and pointing it?
#57. To: Tooconservative (#54)
#58. To: misterwhite (#57)
Did you forget your original position?
#59. To: misterwhite (#56)
Apples and oranges.
#60. To: Tooconservative (#35)
You're being dishonest, deliberately.
If the woman was pointing the gun at a cop in public, he might arguable be justified in shooting her.
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.
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 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.
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.
None of the officers was trespassing.
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
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 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.
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.
#61. To: Tooconservative (#36)
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.
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.
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.
Audio of the non-emergency police line call released by authorities and obtained by the outlet, also confirms that the neighbor never mentioned a burglary, but rather seemed concerned that the front door had been uncharacteristically open for a while.
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.
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.
"(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.”
His partner's testimony will sink him. She saw the victim's face but saw no gun.
"(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.”
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.
Neither the prosecution nor the FWPD will get any statement or interview from Aaron Dean before trial.
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.
“I write to reassure you that you faithfully fulfilled the difficult task you were asked to undertake,” Ramsey County District Judge William Leary III said in his letter to the jury, the Star Tribune of Minneapolis reported Tuesday.
“The criticism of the jury’s decision of which I am aware has focused primarily on a reaction to the squad-cam video and on consideration of issues you as jurors were never asked to address,” Leary wrote. “You were never asked to decide whether racism continues to exist, whether certain members of our community are disproportionately affected by police tactics, or whether police training is ineffective.
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.
Dean's partner, identified in the warrant as L. Darch, told investigators she never saw Jefferson raise the gun before Dean opened fire.
"(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.”
Aaron Dean was only an officer with FWPD since April 2018. He immediately resigned.
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.
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.
#62. To: Tooconservative (#37)
One more, on the gun that is shown very very briefly in the cop-cam footage.
During Monday’s press conference, Fort Worth Mayor Betsy Price said that displaying the gun in the bodycam footage was unnecessary.
I thought it looked hokey the moment I saw it. It looks wrong, like an amateurish fake video made by teens on YouBoob.
#63. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite (#45)
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?
As one officer approached a closed first-floor window with a flashlight, he raised his gun and screamed, “Put your hands up! Show me your hands!”
Pin badges on those statues and both you and nolu would be groveling on your knees.
#64. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite (#47)
You're despicable. A moral leper. And nolu is no better.
#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.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]