United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: What if the Police Don’t Identify Themselves?
Source:
The Libertarian Institute
URL Source: https://libertarianinstitute.org/ar ... lice-dont-identify-themselves/
Published: Oct 21, 2019
Author: Peter R. Quinones
Post Date: 2019-10-22 19:02:25 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 22193
Comments: 83
Anyone who pays attention to cases involving police shootings, especially those that result in a fatality, has noticed that the narrative we first hear coming from the press soon changes. It is no different in the case of Atatiana Jefferson, who was gunned down through a closed window in her home on October 12, after a neighbor called police to report that her front door was ajar at 2AM. Fort Worth police showed up for a “wellness check.” They didn’t bother knocking, instead deciding to pull their guns and lurk around the outside of the house with high-lumen flashlights. Officer Aaron Dean and his partner opened a gate to the backyard, entered, and noticed a silhouette in the window that turned out to be Jefferson. He never identified himself as a police officer, yelled “show me your hands,” and a split second later fired the fatal shot. On Monday, 10/14/19, the Fort Worth PD announced that Dean had resigned from the police force before they could terminate his employment. The same day the report came that FWPD had filed murder charges against Dean. He was arrested, and soon after made the $200,000 bond. When the arrest warrant affidavit was released to the public, it was alleged that Jefferson’s un-named 8-year-old nephew, who was playing video games with her, claimed that Atatiana had noticed people lurking outside, picked up her gun and pointed it at the window. Granted, until an investigation is done, facts such as these are not expected to come out (not that it exonerates the officer). On Thursday, the 17th, the narrative surrounding the initial call to police was changed from that of a “wellness check,” to one of a “potential burglary.” Once again, anyone who has examined cases as such recognizes that this is often done in officer-involved shootings. The subject here should not be what the original intent of the call to law enforcement was made for, but whether a “mundane” has a right to protect their home from a “protected class member,” especially one who failed to identify himself as such. That there are people willing to defend the actions of officer Dean should come as no surprise. But is there a precedent for defending your home from officers who do not announce themselves? Ray Rosas On February 19, 2015, a Corpus Christi SWAT team led a “no-knock warrant” assault on the home of Ray Rosas. They had a search warrant and were looking to arrest his nephew, Santiago Garcia, who they suspected of selling drugs. Garcia was not in the home at the time. One would think that simple surveillance of the property could’ve informed police of this. Or they could’ve knocked and asked if he was in the dwelling. But no, Rosas suffered the typical, cowboy-type SWAT raid that police, on average do 50,000 times a year. When you compare that to 800 per annum in the 1980s, one should ask, why? The team threw a flash-bang grenade into the bedroom of the Rosas home, which was followed by three cops entering without announcing that they were, in fact, law enforcement. Rosas, whose home had been shot at in the past during drive-by shootings, believed he was being robbed, so he pulled out his gun and fired 15 times, striking three officers, all of whom survived the shooting. Rosas was arrested on attempted capital murder which, if convicted, carried a sentence of life in prison. During the trial, those charges were reduced to three counts of aggravated assault on a “public official.” Prosecutors argued that he should’ve known they were police because he had a surveillance camera outside his home. But Rosas had always maintained he did not know they were cops, telling cops as he was being arrested that he did not know they were cops. He also told jailers the same thing that night as they were booking him. After almost two years in jail, awaiting, and during his trial, the jury deliberated for only two hours and found him not guilty. The surveillance camera footage that allegedly captured the raid, was never released to the public. How the case of Ray Rosas relates to the shooting death by law enforcement of Atatiana Jefferson should be clear. In Rosas’ case, the police never announced who they were, threw an explosive device into his bedroom, and trespassed into his home. A Texas jury decided that the testimony of police was contradictory, and that Ray was defending his castle from what he thought were criminals. In Ft. Worth, the police officers never announced who they were and prowled around the outside of Jefferson’s home with flashlights, entering her fenced-in backyard. At 2 AM, it is not unreasonable to believe that anyone who owns a firearm would’ve done the same. Many on social media have proclaimed they would have done the exact thing that Atatiana did. Yet, there are those who seek to make the inane argument that if Dean is held responsible for this murder, “Who Would Ever be a Cop?” That is a great question ignoring the shooting. Using the precedent of the Rosas case, the conviction of Aaron Dean looks to be a slam dunk, although they differ in that the aggressor was unharmed and the peaceful inhabitant was slaughtered. The defense will no doubt rely on the Graham vs. Connor decision. Taking that into consideration, the prosecutor is now the one looking down the barrel.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-20) not displayed.
.
.
.
#21. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#18)
His job is to determine who is a criminal and who is not in real time. And to announce his presence as a law enforcement officer engaged in legitimate law enforcement duties. The laws are not complex. The police department policy is not unworkable. Dean will have no immunity from prosecution as you seem to imagine. Maybe Dean should hire you and nolu as his legal dream team. Let me hear you say, "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit".
Deserving of death? A bit over the top, no? I'm saying, and have said, that when you point a gun at someone they have a right to defend themselves.
You mean in the 1.44 seconds as you calculated? That real time? What about the homeowner? She's allowed to just blast away without determining if it's the police outside her window?
A press release from the Fort Worth Police department said that Dean saw a person standing near a window while searching the home's perimeter and drew his weapon. Also, there's this: The warrant doesn’t say Dean told police he saw a weapon, but it does say his partner could only see Jefferson’s face in the window before Dean opened fire. If he had indeed seen a gun, one would think he would be telling everyone in Texas - instead, after realizing he screwed the pooch big time, he resigned before he could be fired. The guy was basically a rookie with what, a year on the force? Maybe he didn't realize that history has shown if he had made up some bullshit story about seeing a gun, chances are he'd be given a two-week vacation (suspension) while the department "investigated" the incident and escaped any kind of punishment. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
Does the warrant say Dean told police he didn't see a weapon? The nephew said she had one and pointed it out the window.
No doubt his lawyer will try to exploit that angle. And the prosecutor will be doing plenty of voir dire to stop such jurors as you from being seated on the jury. It seems you are ready to engage in some jury nullification now. I thought you were fiercely opposed to that.
His job is not to shoot innocent people. First and foremost. He's supposed to be there for public safety, not to just blast people at random if he gets frightened after he broke recognized police department policy by refusing to take any opportunity to announce his lawful presence. And a woman died due to his criminal negligence. And so he has been charged with murder. And he will be convicted, likely in less than six months.
No need. The law on self-defense is clear. "And the prosecutor will be doing plenty of voir dire to stop such jurors as you from being seated on the jury." The jurors who apply the law, you mean?
No one has even established if Dean could actually see the resident's gun through the window. We have a photo of a bedroom window with a bullet hole in it but with the blinds pulled more than halfway. If they were in that position during the shooting, we have good reason to doubt that Dean could even have seen and accurately identified a gun in her hand. If he couldn't see well, it could have been the game controller for the game console she and her nephew were gaming on. It could even have been a plastic replica gun or rifle used to play shooting games on the gaming console. It could be germane as to whether Dean could even have seen the gun in her hand. He may have just blasted a dimly seen black person, seen partially through blinds at night while trying to discriminate the dark background, the lighted window and his own flashlight's very bright beam. It is not a good situation for anyone to discern targets with any accuracy. The simply story is this: a fraidy-cop didn't announce his lawful presence and blasted a homeowner without any justification. And that will convict him.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. I watched the body-cam video again - the light he was pointing into the window was reflecting off the glass. He couldn't really see much of anything IMO.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. You do this on every one of these types of stories. You wait until all the facts are in, then judge all the players based on those facts. At the exact time of the shooting, he didn't know she was innocent. Or guilty. Or the homeowner. Or a burglar. Or an armed felon who had just murdered the occupants. The police were sent on an open door call. The front door was open. It was 2:30 am and lights were on. Suddenly a figure appears in the window with a gun pointed right at him, and you expect him to somehow know she's innocent ... in 1.44 seconds. Why didn't SHE say something?
Wasn't there a light on in the room?
The nephew said she took a REAL gun out of her purse and pointed it out the window.
But you are the only one here who has already stated categorically that you will exonerate him no matter what, Mr. Foreman.
For all the responses & analyses I've read from on both sides of this issue regarding this incident, the real problem or blame seems to be the matter of basic protocol and policy. Who really bears the responsibility? IS this an LE problem? The judiciary? Anti-2A Globalist-Elites? Who is purposely re-interpreting our laws and setting up protocol & policy so that they lack common sense & common courtesy while humiliating & disrespecting the American citizenry? Isn't this exactly what we're experiencing?) The drip-drip of over-officiousness and intrusiveness we've been witnessing has coincidentally started just after 9/11, has it not?? Here is what reportedly happened to jump-start this incident: * A neighbor called police to report that her front door was ajar at 2AM.* Q: What is any "neighbor" doing up at 2:00AM? Even IF is was merely "ajar" as reported and NOT "opened," WHY did a simple slightly opened door warrant calling the Police? "Wellness Check," my azz. None of this makes any sense. WHY didn’t the investigating LE bother knocking at the door IF it was indeed a "Wellness Check"?? WHY did the investigating LE decide instead to "pull their guns and lurk around the outside of the house' with "flashlights" (which by then was un-Godly hour? (Might other neighbors be alarmed and awakened to report IT as "potential criminal intruders"?) Again, more non-sense. WHO has green-lighted this ongoing OFFICIAL(?) 20-year long policy of intrusiveness, anti-privacy, anti-personal space, and anti-Constitutional assault on the American people? Given these two factors lurking as the elephant in the room, why are people seemingly always willing to overlook or consider that it's AN AGENDA and not rogue LE at the root of this as well as countless similar problems? Many can't help but notice a trend (since the imposition of the Patriot Act) afoot in which Americans have been victimized by this sure but steady erosion and violation of Constitutional Rights.... ...whether it's via LE home invasion, shot dogs, OR as routine violations of our personal, domestic, OR state or national space & sovereignty. ALL sovereignty is being dismantled before our eyes. Can it be said (and observed) that we have been conditioned and programmed like hamsters to accept a tacit "Right of the State to impose its will to intrude upon us; to invade our home? To spy on us? To intimidate, coerce, and otherwise dismiss and crush dissent and pre-911 liberties? What's the next "Stage"?
You need to read the story and catch up on the facts before asking questions.
Not "no matter what". I would exonerate him based on the facts presented so far. It's not the cop's fault he was told it was an "open structure" call whereby they don't announce their presence. It's not his fault that a person suddenly appeared in the window with a gun pointed at him.
The neighbor called the cops and asked them to do a wellness check, which was ignored - the police changed it to an "open residence" call which apparently gives them the right to ignore all police protocols, refuse to identify themselves and allowed Officer Dean (the murderer) to open fire on an innocent woman without identifying himself as police. Even he has not claimed that he saw a gun - he shouted "get your hands up" but shot and killed Atatiana Jefferson even before he finished that sentence.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Do you find it perfectly acceptable to lie that a cop was skulking about? Do you find it perfectly acceptable to lie that a cop was not authorized to be where he was at? Do you find it perfectly acceptable to lie that a cop blindly shot a homeowner . The cop was duly authorized to be there. He responded to a call to go there. He followed protocol for the call he was given. He did not shoot blindly. His flashlight revealed a person with a gun aimed at him. YOU FORGOT ABOUT HER GUN AND HIS FLASHLIGHT. He hit his target with one shot. Your bullshit does not change the Texas statute. You cannot guarantee a damn thing because you know nothing except: You "knew" the cops faked a video of the gun. You have stated 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 How stupid can you be? The video was real. The hole in the window shows the bullet passed through the LOWER SASH of a double hung window. By your expert calculation, she must have been about three feet tall. The autopsy photos will likely show a shot to her gut, or possibly her leg. You have stated: He shot her because she was black. Did you embarrass yourself enough? Nope. You stated: She was not murdering black voters. And Officer Dean was murdering black voters? Officer Dean was engaged in voter suppression? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law Godwin's Law You also won an award re Godwin's Law for your reductio ad Hitlerum. Godwin's Law You stated: Pin badges on those statues and both you [nc - misterwhite] and nolu would be groveling on your knees. The other cop was not in position to see anything but Jefferson's face. The other cop was senior and did not break protocol to announce her presence. She can testify that she saw only Jefferson's face, she hear Officer Dean call out for Jefferson to show her hands, put her hands up, and she heard the report of Dean's gun when he shot, and that he discharged one, and only one, shot. And she can testify as to why, as the senior of the two, she did not announce her presence or knock on the door, and why she was engaged in surveillance of the house. Misterwhite stated: You replied to misterwhite: You're a piss-poor armchair lawyer. Maybe you should leave that end of it to nolu. You stated: And you quoted an article that began: [snip] misterwhite stated: Did you forget your original position? I posted an authoritative law dictionary definition of assault, and requested you respond with a quote from your imaginary lawbook. Quote your imaginary lawbook. You responded: My opinion of your credibility on laws is plummeting. Your non-answer did not provide any definition of assault or any Texas statute. I responded to your non-answer with a quote from the applicable Texas statute: As with #49 and #73, you pulled that out of your ass, not out of a lawbook or statute. The Texas criminal statute on assault provides: (a) A person commits an offense if the person: [...] (2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or [...] (b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed against: (1) a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant; [...] (d) For purposes of Subsection (b), the actor is presumed to have known the person assaulted was a public servant, a security officer, or emergency services personnel if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person's employment as a public servant or status as a security officer or emergency services personnel. [...] Have you no shame? You grossly misstated the law. You responded to Black's Law Dictionary by saying it was not Texas state law. You did not provide any quote of any law. In response to the Texas state law that was force fed to you, you have regurgitated and dribbled ever since. You posted bullshit. You got caught. Deal with it.
Those terms "libertarian" and "liberty" sure do scare you copsuckers. Just the thought of a salesperson from NYC, when summoned as a legal expert, strikes fear in the hearts of men. Not as much as the usual summoning of a libertarian used car salesman, but fear nevertheless. [From Amazon] https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Through-Memedom-31-Day-Liberty/dp/1978400810/ by Mance Rayder (Author), Peter Raymond (Author), Scott Horton (Foreword) Paperback: 96 pages https://www.amazon.com/Dream-Factory-Peter-Quinones/dp/0595257216/ Peter Quinones is a salesperson and speaker from New York City. Janice Malkotsis is a writer and editor from Long Island, New York. When confronted by Texas statutes, I do not always choose outside counsel, but when I do, it is a salesperson from New York City, the most interesting source of law in the world. Not. Stay stupid my friend. Unless you're a cop. Officer Dean aimed at a person already aiming a gun at him. He perceived a deadly threat and, in one shot, eliminated the threat.
You meant to say Officer Dean did not break protocol and announce his presence. Neither did the senior officer present.
Of course, she was not shot for picking up a gun. She was shot because she went to the window and aimed her gun at a cop, causing the cop to perceive a threat to his life and respond to it.
Let me see you present the proof of OJ's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that was presented at the criminal trial. The glove did NOT fit, and the jury DID acquit. Proof. No Baby Justice blather. Closing argument of Christopher Darden: And so you start to wade through that smoke trying to get to that baby. You've got to save that baby. You have to save baby justice.
He was smarter than you. He has given no statement whatsoever. At the trial, if he testifies, he will certainly recall seeing Jefferson and seeing the gun. He will also remember fearing for his life. The partner saw nothing but Jefferson's face. The nephew is documented as seeing Jefferson take her gun, go to the window, aim her gun out the window, and then get shot. The nephew is documented as having seen the gun. The gun is in the video. You are the one making up bullshit.
You meant to say Officer Dean did not break protocol and announce his presence. Neither did the senior officer present.
The defendant need prove nothing. The prosecution must prove all alleged facts beyond a resonable doubt. Your speculation serves acquittal. When the known facts lead to multiple reasonable conclusions, one of which leads to innocence, the one leading to innocence must be chosen. Your desperate grope needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he could not possibly have seen the gun, not speculation. That would have been a breach of protocol and will play no part in the trial. The senior officer did not announce her/their presence. She also followed protocol.
The camera caught reflections from the flashlight. That is not evidence of what Officer Dean could, or could not see. Parallax is a bitch. The view from one eye is different from the view from the other eye. This is the view from Officer Dean's eyes, and a camera more distant than one eye from the other. Your speculative opinion is inadmissible.
The interim police chief disagrees, as does virtually every other cop and legal expert in the state of Texas no doubt. Interim police Chief Ed Kraus said during a press conference earlier this week that he intended to fire Dean but the 34-year-old resigned first. "Had the officer not resigned, I would have fired him for violations for several policies, including our use of force policy, our de-escalation policy and unprofessional conduct," Kraus said. BTW - the original call was NOT made to 911. The neighbor called a non-emergency line to report that Jefferson's home's front door had been left open and requested a "wellness check" which was ignored by the police - instead they escaled the call to an "open structure". There was NO Emergency. The police officers never announced who they were and prowled around the outside of Jefferson’s home with flashlights, entering her fenced-in backyard. At 2 AM, it is not unreasonable to believe that anyone who owns a firearm would’ve done the same. Many on social media have proclaimed they would have done the exact thing that Atatiana did.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Bingo.
So he needed to determine if it was a game controller, a plastic gun, or a real gun, through the window and blinds, in the dark at 2:30 am, in 1.44 seconds. And even if he determined it was a real gun, he had to conduct a fact- finding mission to find out who she was and whether or not she was going to shoot him. In 1.44 seconds.
Well, other than the fact that she had a gun pointed at his head.
Let's be clear. The change was made by either the call center or the dispatcher.
What. Leave the front door wide open at night with the lights on at 2:30 am? With an 8-year old in the house? That simply means many on social media are irresponsible and reckless.
Uh-huh. And if they didn't find a gun? If the nephew said she didn't have a gun? Then what?
Then he says it was a video game controller oops. Then you say it was dark how was he supposed to know.
Yep. That's what happens when you go down the "what if" path. Let's stick with the facts. He said he saw a gun pointed at him. The nephew said she had a gun pointed out the window. They found a gun in the room.
Irrelevant to the criminal proceedings. This is still bullshit and will remain bullshit no matter how many times you say it. There is no mention of "wellness check" or "welfare check" on the call. As there was no such mention, the police did not ignore what was neither said nor heard. The call was recorded in the call log as burglary. It is first documented as open structure in a subsequent press release. Burglary, suspected burglary, or open structure would all indicate a protocol that does not include announcing presence upon arrival. The interim police chief disagrees, as does virtually every other cop and legal expert in the state of Texas no doubt. If you know every legal expert in the state of Texas, why do you rely upon a salesperson from NY, and a Washington, D.C based anarcho-libertarian who writes about cars, as your source of legal expertise? https://mises.org/profile/eric-peters Tags Big GovernmentMedia and Culture Works Published inThe Free Market Contact Eric Peters Twitter Eric Peters is a freelance Anarcho-Libertarian writer, who uses cars and bikes as the vehicle for making the case for freedom and self-ownership. His books include Road Hogs (2011) and Automotive Atrocities (2004). He has written for The Washington Times, Detroit News and Free Press, Investors Business Daily, The American Spectator, National Review, The Chicago Tribune and Wall Street Journal. https://www.thecarconnection.com/writer/10001034_eric-peters Eric Peters is a Washington, D.C.-based automotive writer and frequent contributor to the Detroit Free Press and Detroit News. He has written for the Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily and Washington Times, among others. In his free time, he enjoys working on old cars and currently owns a 1964 Chevy Corvair Monza coupe and 1976 Pontiac Trans-Am equipped with a modified 455 V-8. Eric Peters Autos should not be mistaken for an auto dealership. Or a legal expert. Perhaps an expert at anarcho-libertarianism. "Had the officer not resigned, I would have fired him for violations for several policies, including our use of force policy, our deescalation policy and unprofessional conduct," Kraus said. It is easy for the Chief to say. The Chief has a PR problem. He had another cop convicted last week for murdering a black guy armed with a bowl of ice cream. And the previous chief was fired, which is why the current interim chief was appointed to that position in May 2019. When one is at the scene of an open structure or burglary call and finds a gun aimed at him, what is the applicable policy mandate the officer to do? How long must he negotiate while waiting to see if a round comes out of the barrel pointed at him? If he gives a verbal command that causes no response, how long must he wait? What is reasonable? What is criminal? What is the Fort Worth Use of Force policy? What Fort Worth Use of Force policy directive was violated? Why do you provide PR from the interim police chief, but not the actual written policy? Are you a copsucker? According to Fort Worth policy, Officers are not required to exhaust other reasonable means before resorting to deadly force. More specifically, the policy provides: "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.” Fort Worth Use of Force policy did not require Officer Dean to exhaust other means before resorting to deadly force. Fort Worth Use of Force policy permitted Officer Dean to use deadly force if it was necessary to protect himself or others from an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm. Staring at the business end of a gun pointed at him, and after given verbal commands to which the subject was non-responsive, Officer Dean perceived a deadly threat of death or serious bodily injury to himself and others. He took the shot to remove the threat. What about the allegedly required warnings? Is it safely possible and appropriate to issue warnings when thesubject has a gun aimed at you?
By a stroke of good luck for Officer Dean, the nephew reported that Atatiana Jefferson pulled and gun and aimed it out the window. A real gun was found. And the real gun was registered to Jefferson. And Jefferson had a concealed carry license indicating she carried the weapon around with her. Perhaps the prosecution may engage in fantastic conspiracy theories and allege that it could have been a water pistol. However, that fantastic theory might be deemed unreasonable. As was stated in the jury instructions in a famous capital murder case: IT IS MY DUTY TO INSTRUCT YOU ON THE LAW THAT APPLIES TO THIS CASE. THE LAW REQUIRES THAT I READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS TO YOU. YOU WILL HAVE THESE INSTRUCTIONS IN WRITTEN FORM IN THE JURY ROOM TO REFER TO DURING YOUR DELIBERATIONS. YOU MUST BASE YOUR DECISION ON THE FACTS AND THE LAW. YOU HAVE TWO DUTIES TO PERFORM. FIRST, YOU MUST DETERMINE THE FACTS FROM THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED IN THE TRIAL AND NOT FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE. A "FACT" IS SOMETHING PROVED DIRECTLY OR CIRCUMSTANTIALLY BY THE EVIDENCE OR BY STIPULATION. A STIPULATION IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ATTORNEYS REGARDING THE FACTS. SECOND, YOU MUST APPLY THE LAW THAT I STATE TO YOU TO THE FACTS AS YOU DETERMINE THEM AND IN THIS WAY ARRIVE AT YOUR VERDICT AND ANY FINDING YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO INCLUDE WITH YOUR VERDICT. YOU MUST ACCEPT AND FOLLOW THE LAW AS I STATE IT TO YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE WITH THE LAW. IF ANYTHING CONCERNING THE LAW SAID BY THE ATTORNEYS IN THEIR ARGUMENTS OR AT ANY OTHER TIME DURING THE TRIAL CONFLICT WITH MY INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAW, YOU MUST FOLLOW MY INSTRUCTIONS. [...] YOU MUST DECIDE ALL QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS CASE FROM THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED IN THIS TRIAL AND NOT FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE. YOU MUST NOT MAKE ANY INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS OR THE LAW OR CONSIDER OR DISCUSS FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. THIS MEANS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT YOU MUST NOT ON YOUR OWN, AS I INDICATED, VISIT THE CRIME SCENE, CONDUCT EXPERIMENTS OR CONSULT REFERENCE WORKS OR OTHER PERSONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. YOU MUST NOT DISCUSS THIS CASE WITH ANY OTHER PERSON EXCEPT A FELLOW JUROR, AND YOU MUST NOT DISCUSS THE CASE WITH A FELLOW JUROR UNTIL THE CASE IS SUBMITTED TO YOU FOR YOUR DECISION, AND THEN ONLY WHEN ALL JURORS ARE PRESENT IN THE JURY ROOM. EVIDENCE CONSISTS OF THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, WRITINGS, MATERIAL OBJECTS OR ANYTHING PRESENTED TO THE SENSES AND OFFERED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A FACT. EVIDENCE IS EITHER DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL. DIRECT EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE THAT DIRECTLY PROVES A FACT WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF AN INFERENCE. IT'S EVIDENCE, WHICH BY ITSELF, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, ESTABLISHES THAT FACT. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, PROVES A FACT FROM WHICH AN INFERENCE OF EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER FACT MAY BE DRAWN. AN INFERENCE IS A DEDUCTION OF FACT THAT MAY LOGICALLY AND REASONABLY BE DRAWN FROM ANOTHER FACT OR GROUP OF FACTS ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT FACTS BE PROVED BY DIRECT EVIDENCE. THEY MAY BE PROVED ALSO BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR BY A COMBINATION OF DIRECT EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. BOTH DIRECT EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ARE ACCEPTABLE AS A MEANS OF PROOF. NEITHER IS ENTITLED TO ANY GREATER WEIGHT THAN THE OTHER. HOWEVER, A FINDING OF GUILT AS TO ANY CRIME MAY NOT BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UNLESS THE PROVED CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT ONLY, ONE, CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME, BUT, TWO, CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH ANY OTHER RATIONAL CONCLUSION. FURTHER, EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN OTHER WORDS, BEFORE AN INFERENCE ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH GUILT MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, EACH FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCE UPON WHICH SUCH INFERENCE NECESSARILY RESTS MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. ALSO, IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR COUNT IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE OF WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND THE OTHER TO HIS INNOCENCE, YOU MUST ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE AND REJECT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO HIS GUILT. IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, ONE INTERPRETATION OF SUCH EVIDENCE APPEARS TO YOU TO BE REASONABLE AND THE OTHER INTERPRETATION TO BE UNREASONABLE, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION AND REJECT THE UNREASONABLE. [...]
No, the call contained no mention of a "wellness check." You keep making that up. An open structure call instructs the responding officers to follow a different protocol; not the protocol for a welfare or wellness check. The officers followed the protocol appropriate for the call that they received. https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article236163388.html By Nichole Manna [excerpt] Asked on Saturday afternoon what exactly dispatch told the responding officers and what the call was labeled as when officers were sent, Officer Buddy Calzada wrote in an email that more information would be shared during a press conference on Sunday. That question was not answered during the press conference. It’s important to know what information the officers were given because Benza said officers who are going to a burglary call should react much differently than if they’re checking on someone’s welfare. 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 With an “open structure” call, officers are typically on higher alert, as reports could vary from a door accidentally being left unlocked to something more serious like a burglary. In the case of a burglary, officers are trained to look for signs that indicate someone has broken into the home, such as a smashed window or broken-down door. “You are at a higher sensitivity to what is going on with that house,” London told CNN. “You have to be ready for anything. You are taking more of your environment in consideration to be ready for a surprise if there’s one.” The responding officers did examine the Fort Worth property, with body-camera footage released by the police and shared by multiple outlets showing them walking around the side of the house. 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!” The officer, later identified as Dean, apparently never identified himself as police before firing.
Comments (62 - 83) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe cop didn't know that was an innocent homeowner.
#22. To: Tooconservative (#19)
You are treating her as being as deserving of death for pointing a gun
#23. To: Tooconservative (#21)
His job is to determine who is a criminal and who is not in real time.
#24. To: misterwhite, Tooconservative (#16)
(Edited)
They picked up a gun and pointed it out the window at someone they hadn't identified.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#25. To: Tooconservative (#21)
Let me hear you say, "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit".
#26. To: Deckard (#24)
The warrant doesn’t say Dean told police he saw a weapon ...
#27. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#20)
If I'm on it he walks. Self defense.
#28. To: misterwhite (#23)
You mean in the 1.44 seconds as you calculated? That real time?
#29. To: Tooconservative (#27)
It seems you are ready to engage in some jury nullification now.
#30. To: Deckard (#24)
Also, there's this: The warrant doesn’t say Dean told police he saw a weapon, but it does say his partner could only see Jefferson’s face in the window before Dean opened fire.
#31. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite (#27)
It seems you are ready to engage in some jury nullification now. I thought you were fiercely opposed to that.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#32. To: Tooconservative (#30)
No one has even established if Dean could actually see the resident's gun through the window. We have a photo of a bedroom window with a bullet hole in it but with the blinds pulled more than halfway. If they were in that position during the shooting, we have good reason to doubt that Dean could even have seen and accurately identified a gun in her hand.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#33. To: Tooconservative (#28)
His job is not to shoot innocent people.
#34. To: Deckard (#32)
He couldn't really see much of anything IMO
#35. To: Tooconservative (#30)
If he couldn't see well, it could have been the game controller for the game console she and her nephew were gaming on. It could even have been a plastic replica gun or rifle used to play shooting games on the gaming console.
#36. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#33)
You do this on every one of these types of stories. You wait until all the facts are in, then judge all the players based on those facts.
#37. To: Deckard, TooConservative, misterwhite, nolu chan, GrandIsland (#0)
#38. To: Liberator (#37)
WHY didn’t the investigating LE bother knocking at the door IF it was indeed a "Wellness Check"??
#39. To: Tooconservative (#36)
But you are the only one here who has already stated categorically that you will exonerate him no matter what, Mr. Foreman.
#40. To: Liberator (#37)
WHY didn’t the investigating LE bother knocking at the door IF it was indeed a "Wellness Check"??
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#41. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite (#11)
Do you view it as perfectly acceptable and lawful for a cop to skulk about a property without any evidence of a crime in progress and then blindly shoot a homeowner
You can keep posting this until you wear out your CTRL-C and CTRL-V keys and have to buy a new keyboard. This law only applies if the officer is clearly discerned as a legitimate lawful authority, by presenting themselves in uniform, with a badge. Not skulking around and then blasting someone to announce their presence.
I can virtually guarantee you that this will not be the backbone of Dean's defense at trial.
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.
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."
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.
Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies) is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"; that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends. Promulgated by the American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990, Godwin's law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions. It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.
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.
The other cop on the scene is going to testify against him.
You point a gun at someone walking outside your window it's not self-defense. It's assault. Which is a crime.
It is not.
Let's look at just one state's definition of assault and how it applied to a cop.
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.
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.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
Any willful attempt or threat to inflict injury upon the person of another, when coupled with an aparent present ability so to do, and any intentional display of force such as would give the victim reason to fear or expect immediate bodily harm, constitutes an assault. An assault may be committed without actually touching, or striking, of doing bodily harm to the person of another.
Dear God, are you under the impression that Black's Law Dictionary constitutes the statutes of the state of Texas or the city of Fort Worth or the official policies of the Fort Worth PD?
You huff and puff, but you offer nothing to support your bullshit at #49 with more bullshit at #73, which descended lower at #74.
[Tooconservative #74] The police receive deference to their authority only if they identify themselves and present credentials. This is buttressed by making certain that the public can see their uniform as well as their badge.
ASSAULT.
#42. To: Deckard (#13)
Peter R. Quinones is managing editor of the Libertarian Institute and hosts the Free Man Beyond the Wall podcast. He released his first book, Freedom Through Memedom – The 31-day Guide to Waking Up to Liberty in November 2017.
Freedom Through Memedom: The 31-Day Guide to Waking Up to Liberty 1st Edition
Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; 1 edition (November 19, 2017)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1978400810
ISBN-13: 978-1978400818 About the Author
Whatever you aim your gun at, you are responsible for knowing what you are aiming at.
#43. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite (#17)
And to you that warrants a death sentence for the innocent homeowner with no repercussions to the officer who had violated police department policy multiple times, primarily by not announcing his presence.
#44. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite (#19)
She's dead either way, either for just picking up a gun to defend herself in her home against suspicious human noises in her backyard in the dead of night or for engaging in a first-degree murder of a cop.
#45. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite (#21)
Let me hear you say, "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit".
Now, usually justice is a — a strong woman, but in this case justice is just a baby. And you hear that baby and you hear that wail and you see the smoke. You see the defense. There's all this smoke in front of you. And you feel a sense — you have a sense of justice. And you have a sense of what the law requires. And you have a strong commitment to justice. And to the law, and you want to do the right thing where justice — justice is about to perish. Justice is about to be lost. Baby justice is about to be lost.
#46. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#24)
If he had indeed seen a gun, one would think he would be telling everyone in Texas - instead, after realizing he screwed the pooch big time, he resigned before he could be fired.
The guy was basically a rookie with what, a year on the force? Maybe he didn't realize that history has shown if he had made up some bullshit story about seeing a gun, chances are he'd be given a two-week vacation (suspension) while the department "investigated" the incident and escaped any kind of punishment.
#47. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite (#28)
he broke recognized police department policy by refusing to take any opportunity to announce his lawful presence.
#48. To: Tooconservative (#30)
No one has even established if Dean could actually see the resident's gun through the window.
The simply story is this: a fraidy-cop didn't announce his lawful presence and blasted a homeowner without any justification. And that will convict him.
#49. To: Deckard (#32)
I watched the body-cam video again - the light he was pointing into the window was reflecting off the glass. He couldn't really see much of anything IMO.
#50. To: nolu chan, Tooconservative (#41)
(Edited)
He followed protocol for the call he was given.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#51. To: nolu chan (#47)
You meant to say Officer Dean did not break protocol and announce his presence.
#52. To: Tooconservative (#30)
(Edited)
No one has even established if Dean could actually see the resident's gun through the window ... it could have been the game controller for the game console ... It could even have been a plastic replica gun ...
#53. To: Tooconservative (#30)
(Edited)
and blasted a homeowner without any justification
#54. To: Deckard (#40)
- the police changed it to an "open residence" call which apparently gives them the right to ignore all police protocols,
#55. To: Deckard (#50)
(Edited)
Many on social media have proclaimed they would have done the exact thing that Atatiana did.
#56. To: Deckard (#24)
he had made up some bullshit story about seeing a gun
#57. To: misterwhite (#56)
#58. To: A K A Stone (#57)
Then he says it was a video game controller oops. Then you say it was dark how was he supposed to know.
#59. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#50)
BTW - the original call was NOT made to 911.
The neighbor called a non-emergency line to report that Jefferson's home's front door had been left open and requested a "wellness check" which was ignored by the police -
instead they escaled the call to an "open structure".
He followed protocol for the call he was given.
Eric Peters
Eric Peters, Editor
Interim police Chief Ed Kraus said during a press conference earlier this week that he intended to fire Dean but the 34-year-old resigned first.
"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."
• "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.”
#60. To: misterwhite, Tooconservative (#52)
So he needed to determine if it was a game controller, a plastic gun, or a real gun, through the window and blinds, in the dark at 2:30 am, in 1.44 seconds.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY:
#61. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#40)
The neighbor called the cops and asked them to do a wellness check, which was ignored - the police changed it to an "open residence" call which apparently gives them the right to ignore all police protocols ....
Officer in shooting acted as if responding to burglary, not welfare check, expert says
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
October 13, 2019 04:59 PM, Updated October 14, 2019 10:29 AM The 911 records provided to the public don’t give any indication that dispatchers relayed to officers that the call was a welfare check. A police call sheet on Saturday labeled the call as a “burglary.” A written statement released by police on Saturday afternoon referred to the dispatch as an “open structure” call.
People Magazine
October 17, 2019 08:50 PM An “open structure” or “open door call” is much different than a wellness check, Michael “Britt” London, president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, told the outlet.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]