" Did they find an empty zip lock bag at the scene? If they didn't then -- using doper logic -- that proves there was no drop gun. "

No. It would mean that whoever did the drop, or threw it down, was smart enough to take the bag with them when they left the scene.

For your edification, keeping it in the bag until left at the scene is to ensure no third party left fingerprints on the weapon. If you cap some one, you do not want to leave YOUR fingerprints on the weapon that the capped party supposedly pulled on you, which would justify you capping them. Gee! Pretty elementary really!

The phase “pretty certain” is used when “engaged in, expressing, or based on conjecture rather than knowledge.”

The chief of police made the statement that Dear demonstrated “a clear case of repeated insubordination and untruthfulness,” and had repeatedly failed to turn on his body camera.

The fact that the cop's own boss won't even back him up on this tells me that Dear had a history of turning off his camera.

And you don't find that credible.

How do you explain this: “In frame 516, Mary S. Hawkes’ location appears to have moved a number of feet, as the blood evidence is clearly visible in the camera but the body of Mary S. Hawkes is no longer immediately adjacent to the blood and is no longer visible in the video,”

In addition, the police department’s former custodian or records, Reynaldo Chavez, said in an affidavit that the Hawkes’ video, among others, had been altered, and that records were routinely “bleached” or deleted during his time on the force.

That you find none of this points to a drop gun being placed at the scene only displays your lack of common sense and your continual support for corrupt, criminal cops.

CT freak…

Still using that discredited CIA term, eh?

You really are quite predictable.

You are groveling to find and show flimsy support for a personal opinion you fail to support.

Therefore, the FACT that remains after reading your empty words is that you used the phrase “pretty certain” to ”express YOUR PERSONAL conjecture and speculation.”

I don’t deal in conjectures and speculation like you.

Let me know when you have proof positive the weapon was a throw down.

Until then, I am finished here …

you used the phrase “pretty certain”

I'd bet money on it.

The thing about you copsucker is that you delusionally believe that cops only use drop guns in the movies.

More's the pity.

"No. It would mean that whoever did the drop, or threw it down, was smart enough to take the bag with them when they left the scene."

Aha! So when the cops raid a drug house and find no drugs, that doesn't necessarily mean the residents are innocent. It just means the drugs may have been moved.

" So when the cops raid a drug house and find no drugs, that doesn't necessarily mean the residents are innocent. It just means the drugs may have been moved. "

Whitey, I agree with you on a lot of things, but Your dream here is just bull shit. You are trying real hard to justify this situation but your reasoning is very flawed. If you were on a witness stand, and you spouted such bullshit, most likely the judge would jack your ass real good.

Sorry, you are not going to get promoted from the cruiser washing job to meter maid with this bull shit.

"If you were on a witness stand, and you spouted such bullshit, most likely the judge would jack your ass real good."

Me? I'd love to hear you testify in front of the judge that the gun was a throw-down when you have ZERO evidence.

" I'd love to hear you testify in front of the judge that the gun was a throw-down when you have ZERO evidence. "

And I am sure you have valid evidence that it was not, such as the victims fingerprints on the weapon. Right ?

"And I am sure you have valid evidence that it was not, such as the victims fingerprints on the weapon. Right ?"

You expect me to prove a negative? Nice try. As for the lack of fingerprints ...

"According to the report, APD had previously looked into that gun and traced it to a man who had exchanged Facebook messages with Hawkes. In another message, the report said someone else accused Hawkes of stealing a pistol."

#12. To: Deckard (#11)

Your [Deckard] words here are just empty words that do nothing to confirm the weapon found was a throw down.

You are groveling to find and show flimsy support for a personal opinion you fail to support.

Therefore, the FACT that remains after reading your empty words is that you used the phrase “pretty certain” to ”express YOUR PERSONAL conjecture and speculation.”

I don’t deal in conjectures and speculation like you.

Let me know when you have proof positive the weapon was a throw down.

Until then, I am finished here …

Gatlin posted on 2016-12-28 8:05:45 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#13. To: Gatlin (#12)

you used the phrase “pretty certain”

I'd bet money on it [being a throw down].

The thing about you copsucker is that you delusionally believe that cops only use drop guns in the movies.

More's the pity.

Deckard posted on 2016-12-28 8:36:56 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

Despite no fingerprints, police link gun to Hawkes

[…]

A sergeant in the internal affairs bureau found the gun had originally been purchased by an Albuquerque man in 1998. That man later sold the gun and lost the receipt.

The police reports state that the serial number from the gun had been run through a national criminal information database as part of a separate investigation by APD’s Crimes Against Children Unit. That search traced the gun back to a Michael Gaddy of Albuquerque.

Gaddy was Facebook friends with Hawkes and had asked her to come to his house a week before Hawkes was shot. Hawkes also had messages on her Facebook account from Erik Hawke, who accused Hawkes of stealing a “piece” from his friend.

“Due to the fact that both Erik Hawke and Michael Gaddy are Facebook ‘friends’ with Mary Hawkes, it would appear there is evidence to suffice the origin of the .32 caliber firearm in Mary Hawkes’ possession on the evening,” APD Detective Matt Caplan wrote in a police report that has been submitted to the District Attorney’s Office.

[…]

      https://www.abqjournal.com/823934/despite-no-prints-gun- linked-to-hawkes.html .

I am going to turn your statement around on you:

Deckard: “The thing about you copsucker is that you delusionally believe that cops only use drop guns in the movies.”

Oh, BTW….there was no mention of a clear plastic zip lock bag in the report …

They say that though Dear claimed Mary was holding a gun, the gun found at the scene had no DNA or fingerprints on it …

Well, it isn’t and you can give up your amateur sleuthing to consider yourself an expert in criminology by watching a few television programs.

Here’s why:

[…]

They don't have fingerprints/DNA so the case must be dismissed …

This myth has been around for decades but it has become more prevalent lately thanks to television programs like CSI-Miami. For example, let us imagine that a person is charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm because the police found a pistol in the closet of the bedroom he shares with his girlfriend. After the police seize the weapon they will almost always dust the weapon for fingerprints and, lately, they will also swab the weapon for DNA. In nearly every case there will be no fingerprints nor will there be DNA found on the weapon. This is because fingerprints are left only on hard, shiny surfaces. The only real hard and shiny surface on a pistol is the barrel. A pistol is rarely picked up by the barrel. Likewise, DNA is found only biological tissue. Rarely is enough biological tissue left on the handle of a pistol to permit an analysis to be performed.

Therefore, the forensic analysis from the crime laboratory will likely be negative. The defendant [and ill-advised uninformed cop-haters trying to berate the police and protect criminals] then convinces himself that there is no way he can be convicted. This is far from the truth.

"Possession" under the criminal law is proved when it is shown that the item is question was located in an area that is under the "dominion and control" of the defendant and the defendant was aware of the item's presence. Clearly, it is not required that the state prove that the pistol was, at some point, in the defendant's hand in order to prove "possession." In our example, a bedroom closet is certainly an area that is within the defendant's dominion and control. All that is left is for the state to prove that the defendant knew that the pistol was in the closet. This might be done many ways- including testimony from the officers that the pistol was in plain view on the shelf of the closet and the defendant's clothing was also found in that same closet (permitting the inference that the defendant went into the closet frequently and had to have seen the pistol there on the shelf).

In any event, once the state has got past the preliminary hearing where they established probable cause, there is no way to short-circuit the process. Whereas a weak civil case might be short-circuited by a motion for summary judgment there is no procedural equivalent in a criminal case. The only way to test the sufficiency of the state's evidence is to put the case before the jury.

Do not make poor decisions about your case simply because the State lacks forensic evidence.

[…]

     By: Attorney Jeffrey W. Jensen
     http://w ww.jensendefense.com/articles/mythsaboutcriminallaw.html .

" As for the lack of fingerprints ..."

A good competent criminal investigation requires logical curiosity, so that all questions be answered truthfully, and logically. You cannot dismiss a possibility simply because you do not like the answer. You have to accept the truth

So, if the victim, as claimed, pointed a pistol at the officer, what explanation is there for a lack of her fingerprints on the pistol?

Are you going to suggest that after she was shot, before she died, that she wiped her prints off of the pistol?

You are plucking frea

Lay off the booze that causes you to abuse the family... and act like a Ferguson shitbird here. It's PHUCKING... not PLUCKING. Dumb shit.

Clearly, it is not required that the state prove that the pistol was, at some point, in the defendant's hand in order to prove "possession."

Of course, that must be why the cops turned off their cameras and the department has a long-standing policy of tampering with, deleting and/or "bleaching" video evidence.

Even the chief of police admits that: Police Chief Gorden Eden told the press that Dear demonstrated “a clear case of repeated insubordination and untruthfulness,” and had repeatedly failed to turn on his body camera.

Sorry sport, this was a murder of an unarmed woman committed by two cops (likely homosexual) who attempted to cover up their crime by disabling their cameras.

"So, if the victim, as claimed, pointed a pistol at the officer, what explanation is there for a lack of her fingerprints on the pistol?"

I have no idea.

What explanation do you have for the FACT that the so called "throw down" handgun found next to her body was traced to a man who had exchanged Facebook messages with her?

You ignore the facts and focus on unanswered questions.

"You gotta love the picture of the deceased. The loving family couldn't find a picture of the criminal twat without her PITBULL in the picture. LMAO"

Here's one of the meth head without the dog:

"you used the phrase “pretty certain”

Yep he did. And he's ready to convict on just that.

This is despite the fact that the so-called "throw down" handgun found next to her body was traced to a man who had exchanged Facebook messages with her.

I'd love to hear dickwad's explanation.

"Of course, that must be why the cops turned off their cameras"

Turned off? I thought he said the camera accidentally became unplugged. Hmmmm. Let me check the article. Ah. Here it is:

"Dear, who said his lapel camera had become unplugged during the shooting ..."

Sorry sport, this was a murder of an unarmed woman committed by two cops (likely homosexual) who attempted to cover up their crime by disabling their cameras.

Trace evidence shows that the gun was registered to Michael Gaddy of Albuquerque. Gaddy was a friend Hawkes and had asked her to come to his house a week before Hawkes was shot. Erik Hawke was also a friend and he accused Hawkes of stealing the gun from Gaddy.

The gun was the one found by Hawkes after she was shot by the cop.

You may take time, if you like, to slowly read all this again, for at least the third time, since you are having great difficulty dealing with and accepting it.

After doing that, you will need to come to grips with the factuality that the trace evidence in the possession of the gun carried by Hawkes has completely disproven your wild “throw down” conjecture.

Give it up.

And, you also need to stop watching too many CSI television shows so that you will quit grasping at straws trying to look for something that is not there to protect a criminal.

However, if you choose to do so….you can continue with your CRAZY accusations as long as you want to.

But all you will be doing is to continue to show your ignorance and make more of an ass of yourself.

You are so predictable, in that is probably what you will continue to do ...

I thought he said the camera accidentally became unplugged.

Yep he sure did say that. His past history (according to the Chief of Police) would indicate that the cop is....what's that word again?

Oh right - LYING.

Dear, who said his lapel camera had become unplugged during the shooting, was fired later that year.

Police Chief Gorden Eden told the press that Dear demonstrated “a clear case of repeated insubordination and untruthfulness,” and had repeatedly failed to turn on his body camera.

I'm not the only one calling him a lar apparently.

Why is that?

What evidence can you show that the Chief was not also [“what is that word”] LYING….since you accuse Dear of lying?

"was fired later that year."

For something else, apparently. Otherwise he would have been fired right away.

But you want to tie the two together. Just like you want to believe the gun was a throw down.

Next time work with some facts, rather than your endless speculation.

"You believe the Chief and yet you will not believe Dear?"

Good point! The Chief is also a cop. A big cop. Meaning he's an even bigger liar.

Yet douchbag believes him. Why is that?

"was fired later that year."

For something else, apparently. Otherwise he would have been fired right away.

But you want to tie the two together. Just like you want to believe the gun was a throw down.

The article is misleading….typical yellow journalism.

The city’s personnel board voted 3-2 on November 2015 in favor of giving Jeremy Dear his job back with the Albuquerque Police Department.

He was reinstated in November 2015 …

Next time work with some facts, rather than your endless speculation.

Yea, sure he will….LOL.

The Chief is also a cop. A big cop. Meaning he's an even bigger liar.

You two clowns are hilarious! Yeah - the chief was lying, sure.

Yeah, that's why Dear was fired, the mean cheefie made up lies about him.

"was fired later that year."

For something else, apparently. Otherwise he would have been fired right away.

I have no doubt that you actually believe that.

More's the pity.

"was fired later that year."

For something else, apparently. Otherwise he would have been fired right away.

But you want to tie the two together.

I have no doubt that you actually believe that.

He, misterwhite, said “apparently” you dumb ass.

It is more than “apparent” that Dear was not fired for the incident here.

It is a obvious fact because the firing mentioned in the article occurred LAST YEAR.

Damn yellow journalism….always trying to mislead by twisting facts to fit their agenda.

"You believe the Chief and yet you will not believe Dear?"

Good point! The Chief is also a cop. A big cop. Meaning he's an even bigger liar.

Yet douchbag believes him. Why is that?

Yea, douchbag....WHY do you believe the Chief and not Dear?

"Well, this thread has made one thing clear ..."

Yes it has.

Well, this thread has made one thing clear …

First:

The Chief fired Dear for what the Chief called “a clear case of repeated insubordination and untruthfulness.”

You said that Dear was fired for “lying.”

It is obvious that the city’s personnel board did not agree with you or the Chief that Dear was lying when they voted in favor of giving Jeremy Dear his job back with the APD.

Not even the APD spokeswoman, Celina Espinoza, agrees with you and the Chief when said the reason Officer Dear was fired “had little to do with the issue of lapel camera usage.”

The trace evidence in the possession of the gun carried by Hawkes has completely disproven your wild “throw down” conjecture.

... go to any length to defend ...

"The truth does not need to be defended."

"Well, this thread has made one thing clear ..."

Yes it has.

Yep, it surely has ...

" What explanation do you have for the FACT that the so called "throw down" handgun found next to her body was traced to a man who had exchanged Facebook messages with her?

I have no idea. Nor do I see the relevance.

You ignore unanswered questions, that might punch holes in your theory that it was a justified shooting. Simply because you are such a cop sucker you want to white wash them. For example, the fact that the gun she " allegedly " pointed at the cop did not have fingerprints on it, clearly indicates that it was planted. Yet you are unconcerned about that unexplained little fact. You are not Columbo material.

Look, I am NOT wanting to defend a criminal. But I do not want to defend a dirty cop. This case sounds like a dirty deal. Whether she was a meth head or not, I do not believe that cops are "above the law".

If that attitude is allowed to prevail, our society will break down. Then we will have widespread vigilante justice, and surviving family will commit acts of retribution. No one here, myself, you, or anyone else liked or approved when Cops were assassinated ( Dallas, New York, Pittsburgh, etc, etc ). Well, if cops act above the law, you will get a lot more of that. We all know, that there are dirty cops. I still think it is a small percentage, but it is growing. I do know good cops are frustrated when some slick talking lawyer gets a dick head judge to let a scumbag off the hook. But cops being above the law is not the answer.

Like the old saying: Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

You may be fine with society breaking down, but I am not. I do not want predators roaming the streets. My wife, & my children still live & function in this society. I support the police & the job they are sworn to do, to protect my family & society, and maintain order. But I do not support police that sees everyone without a badge to be the enemy.

If you do not understand that, then it is good that they keep you out back washing cruisers.

I am done here.

"did not have fingerprints on it, clearly indicates that it was planted."

So the cop stole the gun from the owner and planted it near the girl he shot who he knew was corresponding with the gun owner on Facebook.

She was a meth head who had been arrested many times. This time, she stole a truck then ran from the police. The autopsy showed she had a half-dozen different drugs in her system at the time of her death. She corresponded on Facebook with the owner of the gun found next to her body.

But because the officer's camera accidentally unplugged during the chase, your conclusion is that he murdered the girl and planted the gun.

What's wrong with you?

But because the officer's camera accidentally unplugged during the chase

You're sticking with that line of bullshit?

" the officer's camera accidentally unplugged during the chase, your conclusion is that he murdered the girl and planted the gun.

What's wrong with you?

You should ask the same question of yourself

What's wrong with you?

I fail to understand why it is so difficult for someone to understand the fallacy of the “throw down theory” after reading this rebuttal from the Albuquerque Journal:

The police reports state that the serial number from the gun had been run through a national criminal information database as part of a separate investigation by APD’s Crimes Against Children Unit. That search traced the gun back to a Michael Gaddy of Albuquerque.

Gaddy was Facebook friends with Hawkes and had asked her to come to his house a week before Hawkes was shot. Hawkes also had messages on her Facebook account from Erik Hawke, who accused Hawkes of stealing a “piece” from his friend.

“Due to the fact that both Erik Hawke and Michael Gaddy are Facebook ‘friends’ with Mary Hawkes, it would appear there is evidence to suffice the origin of the .32 caliber firearm in Mary Hawkes’ possession on the evening,” APD Detective Matt Caplan wrote in a police report that has been submitted to the District Attorney’s Office.

"You're sticking with that line of bullshit?"

That didn't happen?

But because the officer's camera accidentally unplugged during the chase

You're sticking with that line of bullshit?

And you are sticking to believing one cop over another cop without furnishing any information as to why.

The city’s personnel board agreed with Dear and voted on November 2015 in favor of giving Jeremy Dear his job back with the Albuquerque Police Department.

"More's the pity."

They are not about to let the facts get in the way of the "real" story.

They are not interested in the facts....their warped and slanted opinions are most important to them.

They are not about to let the facts get in the way of the "real" story.

Seriously?

Albuquerque cop Jeremy Dear reinstated after ‘repeated insubordination and untruthfulness’

Officials in Albuquerque, New Mexico, have agreed to reinstate a police officer who had been fired for routinely turning off his body camera, including during a fatal 2014 officer-involved shooting.

The city’s personnel board voted 3-2 on Tuesday in favor of giving Jeremy Dear his job back with the Albuquerque Police Department.

Officer Dear was fired last year as a result of what Police Chief Gorden Eden called “a clear case of repeated insubordination and untruthfulness,”

KRQE News reported last week.

In 2013, the police department ordered Officer Dear to begin recording all of his on-the-job interactions with city residents after the department received several complaints. Chief Eden said Officer Dear routinely failed to comply and had not switched on his lapel camera before fatally shooting a 19-year-old woman following a foot chase the following year.

Police department spokeswoman Celina Espinoza said the reason Officer Dear was fired “had little to do with the issue of lapel camera usage,” with other officials citing a routine disregard for the rules.

Chief Eden said the city will appeal the board’s decision to reinstate Officer Dear and said his termination had been sought because of “a clear case of repeated insubordination and untruthfulness.”

“As I’ve stated before, insubordination and untruthfulness tear at the fabric of public safety, especially when the officer makes a choice not to follow a lawful order,” Chief Eden said in a statement.

So - to recap. Dear was fired for repeated insubordination and untruthfulness and was rehired despite that.

Yeah - because having a lying, insubordinate cop on your force is what all departments should aspire to do.

They are not about to let the facts get in the way of the "real" story.

Seriously?

The gun found by Hawkes at the time she was shot was registered to Erik Hawke, a friend of Mary Hawkes. Hawkes visited Hawke a week before she was shot. Michael Gaddy, another friend, accused her of stealing a gun from Hawkes a week before she was shot.

And here we have two idiots claiming that Jeremy Dear was able to get his hands on that weapon from either Hawke or Hawkes, carry it around for up to a week in a plastic zip lock bag before shooting Hawkes and throwing the weapon down beside her.

You assholes are bizarre….strange and unusual enough to especially cause temporary amusement.

“As I’ve stated before, insubordination and untruthfulness tear at the fabric of public safety, especially when the officer makes a choice not to follow a lawful order,” Chief Eden said in a statement.

Sure, you have...

"And here we have two idiots claiming that Jeremy Dear was able to get his hands on that weapon from either Hawke or Hawkes, carry it around for up to a week in a plastic zip lock bag before shooting Hawkes and throwing the weapon down beside her."

Plus, he'd have to know she was going to steal a truck in his jurisdiction and run away from him ... and he would have to know there was a connection between her and the other guys.

“As I’ve stated before, insubordination and untruthfulness tear at the fabric of public safety, especially when the officer makes a choice not to follow a lawful order,” Chief Eden said in a statement.

And you believe him? He's a cop!

Having lying, insubordinate cops on the force is a "good thing?

You believe that Dear "accidentally" unplugged his camera when his past history shows repeated instances of him disobeying orders and turning his camera off?

Okey dokey.