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.

"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."

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"?

Dean's partner, identified in the warrant as L. Darch, told investigators she never saw Jefferson raise the gun before Dean opened fire.

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.

She was in her house. She heard a noise. She was frightened.

At that point, was she in fear for her life?

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?

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.

If she was not going to shoot the other person with her gun, brandishing her weapon only served to get her dead.

Yep. The other person is allowed to meet force with force. Good article.

"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?

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.

At that point, was she in fear for her life?

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?

If she had, she would have been taught the concept of "meeting force with force". If someone pushes you, you can't shoot him.

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.

I guarantee you, you point a weapon at anyone, anytime, anywhere, be prepared for them to meet force with force.

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.

She fucked up and paid the price.

You're despicable. A moral leper. And nolu is no better.

bankrupt the entire notion of a legal right to self-defense

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.

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.

You're a piss-poor armchair lawyer. Maybe you should leave that end of it to nolu.

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

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.

So if a cop ever pulls his weapon for any reason ...

Yeah. Uh-huh. You got it. That's who I was referring to.

You're despicable. A moral leper. And nolu is no better.

Then you better hope we're not on the jury.

It is not. You're a piss-poor armchair lawyer. Maybe you should leave that end of it to nolu.

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.

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. 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?

Then you better hope we're not on the jury.

You two are a vanishingly small minority who cravenly worship any exercise of police violence.

Your time is up, bucko.

So you agree then that this cop belongs in prison for 5 years for pulling his gun and pointing it?

Apples and oranges.

Did you forget your original position?

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."

Apples and oranges.

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're being dishonest, deliberately.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of the officers was trespassing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was not Scott Israel.

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

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

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

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

Where did you find that information, Matt?

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

“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.”

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?

Had she shot first, and hit what she aimed at, she might be alive.

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.

The cop did not since he deliberately chose not to announce his presence as a lawful peace officer.

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.

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.

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.

You are a failure of intellect, logic and law. There was no wellness check.

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.

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.

"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/

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.

“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.

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.

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.

Regardless of who decided to call it an open structure call.

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.

And an open structure call does not justify blasting anyone on the premises.

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.

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.

A gun aimed at the officer creates more than a suspicion of a clear and present deadly threat.

The cop is still fully responsible for his own use of force, especially if innocent civilians die due to his negligence and incompetence.

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.

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.

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:

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.

"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:

"(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.

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:

"(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.”

Pack in your fantastic theory that there was 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.

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.

Neither the prosecution nor the FWPD will get any statement or interview from Aaron Dean before trial.

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 also hear those statements in the press constantly from the police officials that no wrong can be assigned to the murdered homeowner.

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.

It is Texas after all. Even black people are allowed to defend themselves. And the woman did have a valid CCW license to carry.

All irrelevant.

As the judge in the Philandro Castile case wrote to the jury:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-in-philando-castile-case-writes-letter-of-reassurance-to-jurors/2017/07/04/5593cdba-57bc-11e7-ba90-f5875b7d1876_story.html

“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 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/

“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.

“You were simply asked to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether a crime had been committed.”

So if the woman did no wrong in getting her gun, there can be only one person to blame: the killer cop

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.

whose own partner will testify against him that she saw no gun pointed at him, eliminating his fraidy-cop defense.

No Matt. You're caught bullshitting again.

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 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:

"(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.”

Pack in your fantastic theory that there was no gun.

Aaron Dean was only an officer with FWPD since April 2018. He immediately resigned.

That works against the killer cop.

That works for the officer. No testimony will be permitted about his exercising his Fifth Amendment rights.

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.

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?

The jury won't find it hard to understand any of this. And who was entirely to blame for this poor woman's death.

Matt, even a retard could see through your river of bullshit.

You could at least pretend to regret that this woman was murdered. Even if she was just a black woman.

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.

One more, on the gun that is shown very very briefly in the cop-cam footage.

It's #FakeVideo. They edited it.

And the kill shot was fired from the grassy knoll.

During Monday’s press conference, Fort Worth Mayor Betsy Price said that displaying the gun in the bodycam footage was unnecessary.

“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.

I thought it looked hokey the moment I saw it. It looks wrong, like an amateurish fake video made by teens on YouBoob.

Matt, were you the guy on the grassy knoll? Did you learn your tradecraft under Brennan or Clapper?

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?

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/

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!”

What person assumes "darkened concealment" with a flashlight to lead the way?

Pin badges on those statues and both you and nolu would be groveling on your knees.

And you give your new unfortunate victim a Darwin award.

Give yourself a Godwin's Law award for your Hitler reference.

You're despicable. A moral leper. And nolu is no better.

Matt. You forgot to ping me to your insult. First Hitler, and now this. Oh, the humanity. It appears TFTP is on the job.

[misterwhite #48] You point a gun at someone walking outside your window it's not self-defense. It's assault. Which is a crime.

[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

Any willful attempt or threat to inflict injury upon the person of another, when coupled with an aparent present ability so to do, and any intentional display of force such as would give the victim reason to fear or expect immediate bodily harm, constitutes an assault. An assault may be committed without actually touching, or striking, of doing bodily harm to the person of another.

Quote your imaginary lawbook.

[misterwhite #57 to Tooconservative] 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?

It is a flex position.

Note at Tooconservative #35:

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.

Compare to provided quote in Tooconservative #36:

"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.

You have to be sensitive, flexible and understanding when reading his crap. That ol' short term memory... he's losing it. At #35, he just felt that "multiple times" sounded good and added to the dramatic effect of his TFTP rhetoric.

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.

When someone is prowling in your yard and does not identify themselves as a cop, the homeowner has every right to defend themselves and their home.

Nice job though, twisting the facts to make it appear that the trigger-happy cop who murdered (yeah that's exactly what it was) Atatiana Jefferson is the "victim". But then again, that is your standard fall-back position.

A woman protecting her home with a gun from outside predators is "assaulting" the predator by brandishing said weapon, yet the cop who actually murdered the woman is not guilty of assault? WTF kind of effed up copsucker shyster bullshit is that anyways?

I'll have to agree with TC on this one - you and paulsen's defending this psycho cop is the scummiest thing I've yet seen either of you post.

When someone is prowling in your yard

Police officers in uniform, with flashlights, responding to a report of a possible burglary are not prowlers.

Pointing a gun at them may earn one a Darwin award.

But thanks for playing the TFTP game.

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article236163388.html

Officer in shooting acted as if responding to burglary, not welfare check, expert says

By Nichole Manna
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
October 13, 2019 04:59 PM, Updated October 14, 2019 10:29 AM

[excerpt]

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.

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.

That ol' short term memory... he's losing it.

He also described the incident as a "wellness check", quoted the other cop as saying she didn't see a gun (though the nephew admitted it), and was careful to identify the victim as black -- as though her skin color was a factor.

I think someone highjacked his name and is posting for him.

I think someone highjacked his name and is posting for him.

My vote goes to he forgot he was logged in as Tooconservative, forgot to switch to an alter ego account, and mistakenly started posting this rot as Tooconservative.

At least he did not mistakenly post gay porn.

A written statement released by police on Saturday afternoon referred to the dispatch as an “open structure” call.

They could hear the video game inside the house (what kind of burglar stops to play a fricking video game), it was most likely hot, the windows and doors were open.

Only in police state Amerika can you be murdered by a cop for having your doors open.

‘No Excuse’: Fellow Officers Condemn Police Shooting of Fort Worth Woman

Atatiana Jefferson pointed a gun at her window before being shot from outside by a police officer, her young nephew said. But the police chief said she was entitled to defend herself.

But exactly what the officer saw when he fired the single fatal shot was still in question, even as officials condemned his actions as inexcusable and pursued a rare murder charge against a police officer.

Mr. Smith, the neighbor who called the police early on Saturday, was distraught after learning that Ms. Jefferson had been killed. “I’m shaken. I’m mad. I’m upset. And I feel it’s partly my fault,” he told The Fort Worth Star-Telegram later that day. “If I had never dialed the police department, she’d still be alive.”

NEVER call the cops - sage advice especially when they can murder with impunity and cop-sucking submissives with obsessive authority fetish issues who post here will call the cop a "victim".

even as officials condemned his actions as inexcusable...

And yet the bootlickers here continue to defend the murderous thug.

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.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was not Scott Israel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interim Police Chief Ed Kraus released the officer’s name on Monday afternoon. He said Dean resigned from his position in the police department on Monday morning, ahead of Kraus’ meeting to fire him. If Kraus had the opportunity to fire Dean, he said it would have been for multiple violations, including violating the department’s use-of-force procedures, unprofessional conduct and violating the de-escalation policy. . . . Dean was a commissioned as a licensed officer in April 2018 after completing the Fort Worth Police Academy on March 8, 2018, according to a report from the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement. . . . Kraus said the other officer who was with Dean at the time of the shooting is being treated as a witness.

The other officer was Carol Darch who passed her police trainee eligibility test on 3/7/2018 with a rank of 65 out of 100 applicants. Yet she did not take lead in the backyard. Because she was following PD policy and not murdering the black voters. She had one more year of experience over the killer cop. And she is being considered a witness for the prosecution, not the defense. She will testify against him.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Quote your imaginary lawbook.

Dear God, are you under the impression that Black's Law Dictionary constitutes the statutes of the state of Texas or the city of Fort Worth or the official policies of the Fort Worth PD?

My opinion of your credibility on laws is plummeting.

When someone is prowling in your yard and does not identify themselves as a cop, the homeowner has every right to defend themselves and their home.

To any sane person, this is obviously true. 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.

Nice job though, twisting the facts to make it appear that the trigger-happy cop who murdered (yeah that's exactly what it was) Atatiana Jefferson is the "victim". But then again, that is your standard fall-back position.

These two are like some creepy cult members.

A woman protecting her home with a gun from outside predators is "assaulting" the predator by brandishing said weapon, yet the cop who actually murdered the woman is not guilty of assault? WTF kind of effed up copsucker shyster bullshit is that anyways?

Again, this has a remarkable similarity to cult fetishism.

This isn't ordinary respect for police and police authority. This is craven sickening worship of cops, no matter their conduct. And it isn't the first time we've seen it from these two.

Officer Who Shot Atatiana Jefferson Wasn't Asked to Do Wellness Check Despite Neighbor's Request

They could hear the video game inside the house (what kind of burglar stops to play a fricking video game), it was most likely hot, the windows and doors were open.

Only in police state Amerika can you be murdered by a cop for having your doors open.

The inner front doors were open. The outer storm doors were both closed and appeared to be latched, possibly locked. We can't tell from the video if they were locked or not. The cops made no attempt to see if they were locked from what we see in the video.

"If I had never dialed the police department, she’d still be alive."

I wouldn't say it to his face but he is entirely correct. No doubt, he feels terrible. I've seen his interviews. He's knows his actions led to her death even if he was just trying to be a concerned neighbor.

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.

Let me guess: the call log was just changed mysteriously and no one signed the log for that classification?

Listen to that 911 dispatch call above. No mention of burglary or open structure at all. The only description to what the 911 dispatcher said was "wellness check" even though I didn't hear those exact words. Just open doors and the usual vehicles being present. Then "Shots fired, shots fired".

Only in police state Amerika can you be murdered by a cop for having your doors open.

And here I thought she was killed because she pointed a gun at a cop.

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.

He gave her more warning than she gave him.

Why did she point the gun without saying anything? Why did she point the gun if she wasn't going to shoot? Don't tell me she was in fear for her life being inside the house and the suspicious person being outside.

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

It was a "wellness check" call to the dispatcher and an "open structure" call to the cops. An "open structure" call is handled differently by the cops in that it could mean a burglary.

When someone is prowling in your yard and does not identify themselves as a cop, the homeowner has every right to defend themselves and their home.

By shooting them without warning? That's what she was about to do.

A woman protecting her home with a gun from outside predators is "assaulting" the predator by brandishing said weapon,

Nope. But a woman protecting her home with a gun from outside predators is "assaulting" the predator by pointing said weapon at them.

See how easy this is when you stick with the facts rather than making shit up?

Officer Who Shot Atatiana Jefferson Wasn't Asked to Do Wellness Check Despite Neighbor's Request

Correct. He was called to an "open structure". Is that his fault?

The cops made no attempt to see if they were locked from what we see in the video.

Would that be a smart thing to do if there was an armed burglar/murderer inside? Should the police have announced their presence while standing in the front door? Maybe ring the doorbell?

It was a "wellness check" call to the dispatcher and an "open structure" call to the cops.

Well, based on the recording of the call, the neighbor was passing along his sister's concern to the non-emergency police operator who worked in the 911 call center. This woman then passed that off that info to an actual 911 dispatcher who dispatched cops, Larch and Dean first and then apparently two more cops, one of which arrived just in time to hear shots fired. I'm not certain if it was the third or the fourth cop who radioed back as he arrived at the scene "shots fired, shots fired".

We don't have the portion of the 911 operator's yet where she dispatched Larch and Dean. We have the audio where the 911 operator was dispatching at least one of the two additional operators to the address (the fourth officer may have been listening to the 911 operator speaking to the third cop) and the 911 operator is apparently explaining to them by radio exactly what they're going to encounter there, a home with doors open in the middle of the night, concerned neighbors reporting this as unusual activity as part of the Neighborhood Watch program, two cars in the driveway, two other officers already on-scene investigating. Then we hear the cop who is just arriving says, "Shots fired, shots fired".

When the 911 dispatcher was describing the scene to the third (and/or fourth) officer arriving on the scene, she did not use the word "burglary" or "open structure" or "wellness check". She provided more or less the situation I described above in conversational English to the third (or fourth) cop who was arriving to support the two already on scene, Larch (a 2.5 year cop) and Dean (a 1.5 year cop).

Anyway, listen to that recording and see if you hear anything different.

The "open structure" term and the mentions of it in the police statements is a summary, a classification of the call for their computers and records. But I didn't hear that word used in the only available 911 recording we have so far. We don't hear the words "wellness check" or "burglary" either.

You have to wonder if the third (and fourth) cops arriving on scene were given more or less info or exactly the same info as the first two (Larch and Dean). So far, I assume they were all given the same info. It seems unlikely that Larch and Dean were told "burglary" or "open structure" and that the third (and fourth) cops were not told that same info.

We will find out much more as they release additional 911 dispatch recordings.

At this point, I don't think we should take literally some of these statements by police. Just because the police chief used the words "open structure call" doesn't mean that the 911 operator ever used those exact words to any of the cops. As for whether the 911 operator ever said "burglary", I still don't see any basis to believe that other than an early rumor in a few sources and there has been no further reporting of that as more information has come out. It seems to be unsubstantiated rumormongering, supposedly based on a police log but which is not proven in any way and subsequent police statements contradict that narrative that the 911 dispatcher ever used the word "burglary" to Larch/Dean.

Let me just point out again that even if a 911 dispatcher said "burglary in progress" to Larch/Dean, that does not lessen their responsibility not to harm any innocent bystanders like Atatiana and the boy, Zion. It was for their safety that the officers were dispatched.

There is another truly false dichotomy here, this notion promulgated by nolu and misterwhite that it was somehow inevitable that the homeowner would shoot the cop or the cop would shoot the homeowner. This presumes that the homeowner is as stupid and careless with a gun as the cop. But she wasn't blasting away wildly and there is no factual basis to believe that she would have. He was the reckless dumbass, not her. He killed her and endangered the life of a young boy in the same room.

She was not to blame. And it should not be assumed that if he didn't shoot her first, she would shoot him and therefore he was justified in murdering her because he got all fraidy-cop over the sudden sighting of an armed Negress in her bedroom with her nephew, playing computer games.

He opened fire, not her. No one can know that she would have fired her gun at him. Not him, not you, not a jury. Just because you have a licensed gun for self-defense never justifies a cop coming on your property unannounced and murdering you in your own home in the dead of night.

By shooting them without warning? That's what she was about to do.

Really? Do you shoot someone every single time you get your gun out?

Upon what facts do you assert that she would have fired? How do you know? Why do you believe that she was as criminally reckless as Aaron Dean was when he shot her instead?

He's just a fraidy-cop.

Let me point out that he had a degree in physics. I don't know any conservative physicists. I'm not sure they exist. He was an incompetent, liberal, fraidy-cop with a degree in physics that he never got a job from and who then became a cop and has made his mark in law enforcement by panicking on a call and murdering a black woman in her own home because he was violating PD policy and killed her as a direct result of his own choice to ignore PD policy. He had completed something like 3,000 hours of police instruction, ending only about 1.5 years ago. But how much instruction does it take to learn that a cop isn't supposed to shoot first and ask questions later?

Do we need more police training, post little signs around the stationhouse, "Please don't shoot the voters in their own homes for no good reason"?

What's going to happen is Dean is going to prison, probably for a long time, like 15 years or more. Maybe he should have stayed an unemployed or underemployed physicist and not killed the black biology major with a pre-med minor.

Nope. But a woman protecting her home with a gun from outside predators is "assaulting" the predator by pointing said weapon at them.

Not if she is responding reasonably to suspect events on her property and acting to protect her 8yo nephew and herself. Which is exactly what she was doing.

She had people skulking in her backyard in the dark of night. Her suspicion was reasonable. And the police chief and mayor have both said so repeatedly and denounced Dean for his improper procedure that led him to murder this woman without any cause. This is what they are saying repeatedly in statements and interviews. Instead of bitching about it to me, maybe you should write the chief and the mayor a letter and tell them to shape up because the LF readers are pretty upset. That'll shake 'em up.

If you can't pull out a gun to defend yourself if you hear suspicious noises at night, then what good is a gun? Why bother with the Second Amendment at all? You can never shoot anyone except in a gun duel in broad daylight, Old West style.

But that isn't the law, even if you want to pretend otherwise.

Correct. He was called to an "open structure". Is that his fault?

The call was classified later as an "open structure" call. There is no indication that those words were ever used to Dean or Larch. They certainly were not used to the third (and likely fourth) cops who were arriving just in time to radio back "shots fired".

Listen to that recording again. Tell me at what points you think you hear any of these words: "wellness check", "burglary", "open structure".

I don't think you can. All I hear is a general description that cumulatively adds up to a wellness check.