United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: What if the Police Don’t Identify Themselves?
Source:
The Libertarian Institute
URL Source: https://libertarianinstitute.org/ar ... lice-dont-identify-themselves/
Published: Oct 21, 2019
Author: Peter R. Quinones
Post Date: 2019-10-22 19:02:25 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 25054
Comments: 83
Anyone who pays attention to cases involving police shootings, especially those that result in a fatality, has noticed that the narrative we first hear coming from the press soon changes. It is no different in the case of Atatiana Jefferson, who was gunned down through a closed window in her home on October 12, after a neighbor called police to report that her front door was ajar at 2AM.
Fort Worth police showed up for a “wellness check.” They didn’t bother knocking, instead deciding to pull their guns and lurk around the outside of the house with high-lumen flashlights. Officer Aaron Dean and his partner opened a gate to the backyard, entered, and noticed a silhouette in the window that turned out to be Jefferson. He never identified himself as a police officer, yelled “show me your hands,” and a split second later fired the fatal shot.
On Monday, 10/14/19, the Fort Worth PD announced that Dean had resigned from the police force before they could terminate his employment. The same day the report came that FWPD had filed murder charges against Dean. He was arrested, and soon after made the $200,000 bond.
When the arrest warrant affidavit was released to the public, it was alleged that Jefferson’s un-named 8-year-old nephew, who was playing video games with her, claimed that Atatiana had noticed people lurking outside, picked up her gun and pointed it at the window. Granted, until an investigation is done, facts such as these are not expected to come out (not that it exonerates the officer). On Thursday, the 17th, the narrative surrounding the initial call to police was changed from that of a “wellness check,” to one of a “potential burglary.” Once again, anyone who has examined cases as such recognizes that this is often done in officer-involved shootings.
The subject here should not be what the original intent of the call to law enforcement was made for, but whether a “mundane” has a right to protect their home from a “protected class member,” especially one who failed to identify himself as such. That there are people willing to defend the actions of officer Dean should come as no surprise. But is there a precedent for defending your home from officers who do not announce themselves?
Ray Rosas
On February 19, 2015, a Corpus Christi SWAT team led a “no-knock warrant” assault on the home of Ray Rosas. They had a search warrant and were looking to arrest his nephew, Santiago Garcia, who they suspected of selling drugs. Garcia was not in the home at the time. One would think that simple surveillance of the property could’ve informed police of this. Or they could’ve knocked and asked if he was in the dwelling. But no, Rosas suffered the typical, cowboy-type SWAT raid that police, on average do 50,000 times a year. When you compare that to 800 per annum in the 1980s, one should ask, why?
The team threw a flash-bang grenade into the bedroom of the Rosas home, which was followed by three cops entering without announcing that they were, in fact, law enforcement.
Rosas, whose home had been shot at in the past during drive-by shootings, believed he was being robbed, so he pulled out his gun and fired 15 times, striking three officers, all of whom survived the shooting.
Rosas was arrested on attempted capital murder which, if convicted, carried a sentence of life in prison. During the trial, those charges were reduced to three counts of aggravated assault on a “public official.” Prosecutors argued that he should’ve known they were police because he had a surveillance camera outside his home.
But Rosas had always maintained he did not know they were cops, telling cops as he was being arrested that he did not know they were cops. He also told jailers the same thing that night as they were booking him.
After almost two years in jail, awaiting, and during his trial, the jury deliberated for only two hours and found him not guilty.
The surveillance camera footage that allegedly captured the raid, was never released to the public.
How the case of Ray Rosas relates to the shooting death by law enforcement of Atatiana Jefferson should be clear. In Rosas’ case, the police never announced who they were, threw an explosive device into his bedroom, and trespassed into his home. A Texas jury decided that the testimony of police was contradictory, and that Ray was defending his castle from what he thought were criminals.
In Ft. Worth, the police officers never announced who they were and prowled around the outside of Jefferson’s home with flashlights, entering her fenced-in backyard. At 2 AM, it is not unreasonable to believe that anyone who owns a firearm would’ve done the same. Many on social media have proclaimed they would have done the exact thing that Atatiana did. Yet, there are those who seek to make the inane argument that if Dean is held responsible for this murder, “Who Would Ever be a Cop?” That is a great question ignoring the shooting.
Using the precedent of the Rosas case, the conviction of Aaron Dean looks to be a slam dunk, although they differ in that the aggressor was unharmed and the peaceful inhabitant was slaughtered. The defense will no doubt rely on the Graham vs. Connor decision. Taking that into consideration, the prosecutor is now the one looking down the barrel.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-42) not displayed.
.
.
.
#43. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite (#17)
And to you that warrants a death sentence for the innocent homeowner with no repercussions to the officer who had violated police department policy multiple times, primarily by not announcing his presence.
You meant to say Officer Dean did not break protocol and announce his presence. Neither did the senior officer present.
#44. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite (#19)
She's dead either way, either for just picking up a gun to defend herself in her home against suspicious human noises in her backyard in the dead of night or for engaging in a first-degree murder of a cop.
Of course, she was not shot for picking up a gun. She was shot because she went to the window and aimed her gun at a cop, causing the cop to perceive a threat to his life and respond to it.
#45. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite (#21)
Let me hear you say, "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit".
Let me see you present the proof of OJ's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that was presented at the criminal trial. The glove did NOT fit, and the jury DID acquit.
Proof. No Baby Justice blather.
Closing argument of Christopher Darden:
Now, usually justice is a — a strong woman, but in this case justice is just a baby. And you hear that baby and you hear that wail and you see the smoke. You see the defense. There's all this smoke in front of you. And you feel a sense — you have a sense of justice. And you have a sense of what the law requires. And you have a strong commitment to justice. And to the law, and you want to do the right thing where justice — justice is about to perish. Justice is about to be lost. Baby justice is about to be lost.And so you start to wade through that smoke trying to get to that baby. You've got to save that baby.
You have to save baby justice.
#46. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#24)
If he had indeed seen a gun, one would think he would be telling everyone in Texas - instead, after realizing he screwed the pooch big time, he resigned before he could be fired.
He was smarter than you. He has given no statement whatsoever. At the trial, if he testifies, he will certainly recall seeing Jefferson and seeing the gun. He will also remember fearing for his life.
The partner saw nothing but Jefferson's face. The nephew is documented as seeing Jefferson take her gun, go to the window, aim her gun out the window, and then get shot.
The guy was basically a rookie with what, a year on the force? Maybe he didn't realize that history has shown if he had made up some bullshit story about seeing a gun, chances are he'd be given a two-week vacation (suspension) while the department "investigated" the incident and escaped any kind of punishment.
The nephew is documented as having seen the gun. The gun is in the video. You are the one making up bullshit.
#47. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite (#28)
he broke recognized police department policy by refusing to take any opportunity to announce his lawful presence.
You meant to say Officer Dean did not break protocol and announce his presence. Neither did the senior officer present.
#48. To: Tooconservative (#30)
No one has even established if Dean could actually see the resident's gun through the window.
The defendant need prove nothing. The prosecution must prove all alleged facts beyond a resonable doubt. Your speculation serves acquittal. When the known facts lead to multiple reasonable conclusions, one of which leads to innocence, the one leading to innocence must be chosen.
Your desperate grope needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he could not possibly have seen the gun, not speculation.
The simply story is this: a fraidy-cop didn't announce his lawful presence and blasted a homeowner without any justification. And that will convict him.
That would have been a breach of protocol and will play no part in the trial. The senior officer did not announce her/their presence. She also followed protocol.
#49. To: Deckard (#32)
I watched the body-cam video again - the light he was pointing into the window was reflecting off the glass. He couldn't really see much of anything IMO.
The camera caught reflections from the flashlight. That is not evidence of what Officer Dean could, or could not see. Parallax is a bitch. The view from one eye is different from the view from the other eye. This is the view from Officer Dean's eyes, and a camera more distant than one eye from the other.
Your speculative opinion is inadmissible.
#50. To: nolu chan, Tooconservative (#41) (Edited)
He followed protocol for the call he was given.
The interim police chief disagrees, as does virtually every other cop and legal expert in the state of Texas no doubt.
Interim police Chief Ed Kraus said during a press conference earlier this week that he intended to fire Dean but the 34-year-old resigned first.
"Had the officer not resigned, I would have fired him for violations for several policies, including our use of force policy, our de-escalation policy and unprofessional conduct," Kraus said.
BTW - the original call was NOT made to 911. The neighbor called a non-emergency line to report that Jefferson's home's front door had been left open and requested a "wellness check" which was ignored by the police - instead they escaled the call to an "open structure".
There was NO Emergency.
The police officers never announced who they were and prowled around the outside of Jefferson’s home with flashlights, entering her fenced-in backyard. At 2 AM, it is not unreasonable to believe that anyone who owns a firearm would’ve done the same. Many on social media have proclaimed they would have done the exact thing that Atatiana did.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#51. To: nolu chan (#47)
You meant to say Officer Dean did not break protocol and announce his presence.
Bingo.
#52. To: Tooconservative (#30) (Edited)
No one has even established if Dean could actually see the resident's gun through the window ... it could have been the game controller for the game console ... It could even have been a plastic replica gun ...
So he needed to determine if it was a game controller, a plastic gun, or a real gun, through the window and blinds, in the dark at 2:30 am, in 1.44 seconds.
And even if he determined it was a real gun, he had to conduct a fact- finding mission to find out who she was and whether or not she was going to shoot him. In 1.44 seconds.
#53. To: Tooconservative (#30) (Edited)
and blasted a homeowner without any justification
Well, other than the fact that she had a gun pointed at his head.
#54. To: Deckard (#40)
- the police changed it to an "open residence" call which apparently gives them the right to ignore all police protocols,
Let's be clear. The change was made by either the call center or the dispatcher.
#55. To: Deckard (#50) (Edited)
Many on social media have proclaimed they would have done the exact thing that Atatiana did.
What. Leave the front door wide open at night with the lights on at 2:30 am? With an 8-year old in the house?
That simply means many on social media are irresponsible and reckless.
#56. To: Deckard (#24)
he had made up some bullshit story about seeing a gun
Uh-huh. And if they didn't find a gun? If the nephew said she didn't have a gun? Then what?
#57. To: misterwhite (#56)
Then he says it was a video game controller oops. Then you say it was dark how was he supposed to know.
#58. To: A K A Stone (#57)
Then he says it was a video game controller oops. Then you say it was dark how was he supposed to know.
Yep. That's what happens when you go down the "what if" path.
Let's stick with the facts. He said he saw a gun pointed at him. The nephew said she had a gun pointed out the window. They found a gun in the room.
#59. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#50)
BTW - the original call was NOT made to 911.
Irrelevant to the criminal proceedings.
The neighbor called a non-emergency line to report that Jefferson's home's front door had been left open and requested a "wellness check" which was ignored by the police -
This is still bullshit and will remain bullshit no matter how many times you say it. There is no mention of "wellness check" or "welfare check" on the call. As there was no such mention, the police did not ignore what was neither said nor heard.
instead they escaled the call to an "open structure".
The call was recorded in the call log as burglary. It is first documented as open structure in a subsequent press release.
Burglary, suspected burglary, or open structure would all indicate a protocol that does not include announcing presence upon arrival.
He followed protocol for the call he was given.The interim police chief disagrees, as does virtually every other cop and legal expert in the state of Texas no doubt.
If you know every legal expert in the state of Texas, why do you rely upon a salesperson from NY, and a Washington, D.C based anarcho-libertarian who writes about cars, as your source of legal expertise?
https://mises.org/profile/eric-peters
Eric PetersTags Big GovernmentMedia and Culture
Works Published inThe Free Market
Contact Eric Peters Twitter
Eric Peters is a freelance Anarcho-Libertarian writer, who uses cars and bikes as the vehicle for making the case for freedom and self-ownership. His books include Road Hogs (2011) and Automotive Atrocities (2004). He has written for The Washington Times, Detroit News and Free Press, Investors Business Daily, The American Spectator, National Review, The Chicago Tribune and Wall Street Journal.
https://www.thecarconnection.com/writer/10001034_eric-peters
Eric Peters, EditorEric Peters is a Washington, D.C.-based automotive writer and frequent contributor to the Detroit Free Press and Detroit News. He has written for the Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily and Washington Times, among others. In his free time, he enjoys working on old cars and currently owns a 1964 Chevy Corvair Monza coupe and 1976 Pontiac Trans-Am equipped with a modified 455 V-8.
Eric Peters Autos should not be mistaken for an auto dealership. Or a legal expert. Perhaps an expert at anarcho-libertarianism.
Interim police Chief Ed Kraus said during a press conference earlier this week that he intended to fire Dean but the 34-year-old resigned first."Had the officer not resigned, I would have fired him for violations for several policies, including our use of force policy, our deescalation policy and unprofessional conduct," Kraus said.
It is easy for the Chief to say. The Chief has a PR problem. He had another cop convicted last week for murdering a black guy armed with a bowl of ice cream. And the previous chief was fired, which is why the current interim chief was appointed to that position in May 2019.
When one is at the scene of an open structure or burglary call and finds a gun aimed at him, what is the applicable policy mandate the officer to do? How long must he negotiate while waiting to see if a round comes out of the barrel pointed at him? If he gives a verbal command that causes no response, how long must he wait? What is reasonable? What is criminal?
What is the Fort Worth Use of Force policy? What Fort Worth Use of Force policy directive was violated? Why do you provide PR from the interim police chief, but not the actual written policy? Are you a copsucker?
According to Fort Worth policy, Officers are not required to exhaust other reasonable means before resorting to deadly force. More specifically, the policy provides:
"Under no circumstances will the force used by an officer be greater than necessary to make an arrest or a detention or to protect oneself or another, nor will the force be used longer than necessary to subdue the suspect, and deadly force shall not be used except as specifically provided in this directive.""The use of deadly force is authorized only when it is necessary for officers to protect themselves or others from an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury.”
Fort Worth Use of Force policy did not require Officer Dean to exhaust other means before resorting to deadly force. Fort Worth Use of Force policy permitted Officer Dean to use deadly force if it was necessary to protect himself or others from an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm. Staring at the business end of a gun pointed at him, and after given verbal commands to which the subject was non-responsive, Officer Dean perceived a deadly threat of death or serious bodily injury to himself and others. He took the shot to remove the threat.
What about the allegedly required warnings? Is it safely possible and appropriate to issue warnings when thesubject has a gun aimed at you?
• "When safely possible, an officer shall use de-escalation techniques consistent with department training whenever possible and appropriate before resorting to force and to reduce the need for force.”
#60. To: misterwhite, Tooconservative (#52)
So he needed to determine if it was a game controller, a plastic gun, or a real gun, through the window and blinds, in the dark at 2:30 am, in 1.44 seconds.
By a stroke of good luck for Officer Dean, the nephew reported that Atatiana Jefferson pulled and gun and aimed it out the window. A real gun was found. And the real gun was registered to Jefferson. And Jefferson had a concealed carry license indicating she carried the weapon around with her.
Perhaps the prosecution may engage in fantastic conspiracy theories and allege that it could have been a water pistol. However, that fantastic theory might be deemed unreasonable.
As was stated in the jury instructions in a famous capital murder case:
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY:IT IS MY DUTY TO INSTRUCT YOU ON THE LAW THAT APPLIES TO THIS CASE. THE LAW REQUIRES THAT I READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS TO YOU. YOU WILL HAVE THESE INSTRUCTIONS IN WRITTEN FORM IN THE JURY ROOM TO REFER TO DURING YOUR DELIBERATIONS.
YOU MUST BASE YOUR DECISION ON THE FACTS AND THE LAW.
YOU HAVE TWO DUTIES TO PERFORM. FIRST, YOU MUST DETERMINE THE FACTS FROM THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED IN THE TRIAL AND NOT FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE. A "FACT" IS SOMETHING PROVED DIRECTLY OR CIRCUMSTANTIALLY BY THE EVIDENCE OR BY STIPULATION. A STIPULATION IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ATTORNEYS REGARDING THE FACTS.
SECOND, YOU MUST APPLY THE LAW THAT I STATE TO YOU TO THE FACTS AS YOU DETERMINE THEM AND IN THIS WAY ARRIVE AT YOUR VERDICT AND ANY FINDING YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO INCLUDE WITH YOUR VERDICT.
YOU MUST ACCEPT AND FOLLOW THE LAW AS I STATE IT TO YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE WITH THE LAW. IF ANYTHING CONCERNING THE LAW SAID BY THE ATTORNEYS IN THEIR ARGUMENTS OR AT ANY OTHER TIME DURING THE TRIAL CONFLICT WITH MY INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAW, YOU MUST FOLLOW MY INSTRUCTIONS.
[...]
YOU MUST DECIDE ALL QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS CASE FROM THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED IN THIS TRIAL AND NOT FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE.
YOU MUST NOT MAKE ANY INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS OR THE LAW OR CONSIDER OR DISCUSS FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. THIS MEANS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT YOU MUST NOT ON YOUR OWN, AS I INDICATED, VISIT THE CRIME SCENE, CONDUCT EXPERIMENTS OR CONSULT REFERENCE WORKS OR OTHER PERSONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
YOU MUST NOT DISCUSS THIS CASE WITH ANY OTHER PERSON EXCEPT A FELLOW JUROR, AND YOU MUST NOT DISCUSS THE CASE WITH A FELLOW JUROR UNTIL THE CASE IS SUBMITTED TO YOU FOR YOUR DECISION, AND THEN ONLY WHEN ALL JURORS ARE PRESENT IN THE JURY ROOM.
EVIDENCE CONSISTS OF THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, WRITINGS, MATERIAL OBJECTS OR ANYTHING PRESENTED TO THE SENSES AND OFFERED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A FACT.
EVIDENCE IS EITHER DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL. DIRECT EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE THAT DIRECTLY PROVES A FACT WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF AN INFERENCE. IT'S EVIDENCE, WHICH BY ITSELF, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, ESTABLISHES THAT FACT.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, PROVES A FACT FROM WHICH AN INFERENCE OF EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER FACT MAY BE DRAWN. AN INFERENCE IS A DEDUCTION OF FACT THAT MAY LOGICALLY AND REASONABLY BE DRAWN FROM ANOTHER FACT OR GROUP OF FACTS ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE.
IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT FACTS BE PROVED BY DIRECT EVIDENCE. THEY MAY BE PROVED ALSO BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR BY A COMBINATION OF DIRECT EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
BOTH DIRECT EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ARE ACCEPTABLE AS A MEANS OF PROOF. NEITHER IS ENTITLED TO ANY GREATER WEIGHT THAN THE OTHER.
HOWEVER, A FINDING OF GUILT AS TO ANY CRIME MAY NOT BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UNLESS THE PROVED CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT ONLY, ONE, CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME, BUT, TWO, CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH ANY OTHER RATIONAL CONCLUSION.
FURTHER, EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN OTHER WORDS, BEFORE AN INFERENCE ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH GUILT MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, EACH FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCE UPON WHICH SUCH INFERENCE NECESSARILY RESTS MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
ALSO, IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR COUNT IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE OF WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND THE OTHER TO HIS INNOCENCE, YOU MUST ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE AND REJECT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO HIS GUILT.
IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, ONE INTERPRETATION OF SUCH EVIDENCE APPEARS TO YOU TO BE REASONABLE AND THE OTHER INTERPRETATION TO BE UNREASONABLE, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION AND REJECT THE UNREASONABLE.
[...]
#61. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#40)
The neighbor called the cops and asked them to do a wellness check, which was ignored - the police changed it to an "open residence" call which apparently gives them the right to ignore all police protocols ....
No, the call contained no mention of a "wellness check." You keep making that up.
An open structure call instructs the responding officers to follow a different protocol; not the protocol for a welfare or wellness check.
The officers followed the protocol appropriate for the call that they received.
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article236163388.html
Officer in shooting acted as if responding to burglary, not welfare check, expert saysBy 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.
https://people.com/crime/officer-shot-atatiana-jefferson-wasnt-doing-wellness-check/
Officer Who Shot Atatiana Jefferson Wasn't Asked to Do Wellness Check Despite Neighbor's Request
Fort Worth Interim Police Chief Ed Kraus told reporters on Tuesday that former officer Aaron Dean was responding to an "open structure call"
By Joelle Goldstein
People Magazine
October 17, 2019 08:50 PM
An “open structure” or “open door call” is much different than a wellness check, Michael “Britt” London, president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, told the outlet.With an “open structure” call, officers are typically on higher alert, as reports could vary from a door accidentally being left unlocked to something more serious like a burglary.
In the case of a burglary, officers are trained to look for signs that indicate someone has broken into the home, such as a smashed window or broken-down door.
“You are at a higher sensitivity to what is going on with that house,” London told CNN. “You have to be ready for anything. You are taking more of your environment in consideration to be ready for a surprise if there’s one.”
The responding officers did examine the Fort Worth property, with body-camera footage released by the police and shared by multiple outlets showing them walking around the side of the house.
As one officer approached a closed first-floor window with a flashlight, he raised his gun and screamed, “Put your hands up! Show me your hands!” The officer, later identified as Dean, apparently never identified himself as police before firing.
#62. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#56)
he had made up some bullshit story about seeing a gunUh-huh. And if they didn't find a gun? If the nephew said she didn't have a gun? Then what?
Ah. But they did find a gun. The nephew is documented saying that Jefferson armed herself with a gun, went to the window and aimed it out the window. The gun found near the window was registered to Atatiana Jefferson and she had a concealed carry license. It was hardly a "plant" gun, conveniently registered to Atatiana Jefferson, which an officer pulled out of his sock.
#63. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#57)
Then he says it was a video game controller oops. Then you say it was dark how was he supposed to know.
From the jury instruction in a famous capital murder case:
FURTHER, EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN OTHER WORDS, BEFORE AN INFERENCE ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH GUILT MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, EACH FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCE UPON WHICH SUCH INFERENCE NECESSARILY RESTS MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.ALSO, IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR COUNT IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE OF WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND THE OTHER TO HIS INNOCENCE, YOU MUST ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE AND REJECT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO HIS GUILT.
IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, ONE INTERPRETATION OF SUCH EVIDENCE APPEARS TO YOU TO BE REASONABLE AND THE OTHER INTERPRETATION TO BE UNREASONABLE, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION AND REJECT THE UNREASONABLE.
#64. To: nolu chan (#62) (Edited)
The nephew is documented saying that Jefferson armed herself with a gun, went to the window and aimed it out the window.
So fucking what? It's her house, she has every right to defend herself from any intruders. She was shot and killed before Dean was finished saying "Get your hands up".
Every fricking cop and expert AGREE that she was well within her rights to defend herself
Go suck some more cop cock shyster.
Your poster boy for "exemplary" police work is going down. The formerly badged coward will be doing 20 years.
And cop worshipers like you and paulsen will STILL defend the miserable piece of shit.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#65. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#64)
It's her house, she has every right to defend herself from any intruders.
So what? Nobody's arguing that she didn't. Of course, assault with deadly force is not necessarily an appropriate response to the threat of noise a ray of light.
She was shot and killed before Dean was finished saying "Get your hands up".
Damn, your bullshit do get better with every retelling. I'll bet your fish stories are whoppers about reeling in Moby Dick. I breathlessly wait for the next retelling where Officer Dean first shoots her and only later tells her to put up her hands.
Every fricking cop and expert AGREE that she was well within her rights to defend herself
I am impressed that you not only know every cop, but that you also know their opinions on this case. Of course she was within her rights to defend herself from noise and a ray of light. Just as the Fort Worth Police Use of Force policy allowed Officer Dean to defend himself or others from a threat of deadly force, with no warning or attempt at deescalation.
According to Fort Worth policy, Officers are not required to exhaust other reasonable means before resorting to deadly force. More specifically, the policy provides:
"Under no circumstances will the force used by an officer be greater than necessary to make an arrest or a detention or to protect oneself or another, nor will the force be used longer than necessary to subdue the suspect, and deadly force shall not be used except as specifically provided in this directive.""The use of deadly force is authorized only when it is necessary for officers to protect themselves or others from an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury.”
Fort Worth Use of Force policy did not require Officer Dean to exhaust other means before resorting to deadly force. Fort Worth Use of Force policy permitted Officer Dean to use deadly force if it was necessary to protect himself or others from an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm. Staring at the business end of a gun pointed at him, and after given verbal commands to which the subject was non-responsive, Officer Dean perceived a deadly threat of death or serious bodily injury to himself and others. He took the shot to remove the threat.
What about the allegedly required warnings? Is it safely possible and appropriate to issue warnings when thesubject has a gun aimed at you?
• "When safely possible, an officer shall use de-escalation techniquesconsistent with department training whenever possible and appropriate before resorting to force and to reduce the need for force.”
For your consideration of every cop, indeed EXPERT cops:
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article236163388.html
Officer in shooting acted as if responding to burglary, not welfare check, expert saysBy 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.
https://people.com/crime/officer-shot-atatiana-jefferson-wasnt-doing-wellness-check/
Officer Who Shot Atatiana Jefferson Wasn't Asked to Do Wellness Check Despite Neighbor's Request
Fort Worth Interim Police Chief Ed Kraus told reporters on Tuesday that former officer Aaron Dean was responding to an "open structure call"
By Joelle Goldstein
People Magazine
October 17, 2019 08:50 PM
An “open structure” or “open door call” is much different than a wellness check, Michael “Britt” London, president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, told the outlet.With an “open structure” call, officers are typically on higher alert, as reports could vary from a door accidentally being left unlocked to something more serious like a burglary.
In the case of a burglary, officers are trained to look for signs that indicate someone has broken into the home, such as a smashed window or broken-down door.
“You are at a higher sensitivity to what is going on with that house,” London told CNN. “You have to be ready for anything. You are taking more of your environment in consideration to be ready for a surprise if there’s one.”
The responding officers did examine the Fort Worth property, with body-camera footage released by the police and shared by multiple outlets showing them walking around the side of the house.
As one officer approached a closed first-floor window with a flashlight, he raised his gun and screamed, “Put your hands up! Show me your hands!” The officer, later identified as Dean, apparently never identified himself as police before firing.
And it appears you are the copsucker. You quote a cop engaged in public relations in preference to the actual use of force policy.
Are you having a mad, bro?
#66. To: nolu chan, Tooconservative (#65)
She was shot and killed before Dean was finished saying "Get your hands up".Damn, your bullshit do get better with every retelling.
Didn't watch the video or read TC's breakdown of the actual time it took for Dean to pull the trigger, did you sparky?
Go ahead, post more of your copy and paste spam. Make sure you make the font as big as you can - by golly, that impresses the hell out of everyone. That way we can all laugh at your abject desperation.
It's obvious that your worship of all things cop will mot be deterred, so have a good day.
The murderous asshole you keep defending (even though virtually every cop and legal expert has said that he fucked up big time) will be in prison for a long time.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#67. To: Deckard (#66)
Didn't watch the video or read TC's breakdown of the actual time it took for Dean to pull the trigger, did you sparky?
That was on the original thread where the Matts embarassed themselves so bad that they started this new thread so they could whore their wares on a new street corner, starting all over again as virgins.
As you seem to have missed it, here is a repeat of the dismissal of Matt as Tooconservative's bullshit story. You really should get that short-term memory checked out.
#92. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite (#72)
As for your ridiculous time estimate of the verbal warning and the shot, I downloaded the video to check it closely playing at slow speed.The killer cop shouted "Put your hands up, show me your hands".
He began to open his mouth to yell at 00:01:34:28 (28 thirtieths of a second after the 1 minute 34 second point in the video).
He started to yell the 'P' in "Put" at 00:01:35:00, .0666 seconds after he started to open his mouth.
His voiced trailed off after yelling "hands", going quiet at 00:01:36:06
The initial sound of the gunshot began at 00:01:36:11 when the sound spiked and distorted sharply.
From the beginning of the 'P' in "Put" (00:01:34:28) to the beginning of the gunshot sound (00:01:36:11) is 1 and 13/30ths seconds. Or 1.43333 seconds. And I am actually being generous in that measurement by a few thirthieths (sic) of a second.
Damn Matt. Only an asshole of gigantic proportions could claim to have worked out the time to the one hundred thousandth of a second. This claim features the inescapable illogic of the jackass who fantasized about the distance of the Las Vegas shooting using Google Sketch.
The camera shoots 30 frames per second. Your calculation of 1.43333 seconds is bullshit, just as the Las Vegas numbers were bullshit. Using sampling every 1/30th of a second, and calculating to the hundred thousandth of a second is scientific bullshit. The variance of the camera between frames would be greater than 1/100000 of a second. Moreover, the sampling rate does not permit your fantastic calculation. You wasted your time. Don't waste my time, and every else's time with your bullshit.
A purported claim of a time interval calculated down to the 1/100,000th of a second qualifies as ridiculous, make believe bullshit.
As for your ridiculous time estimate of the verbal warning and the shot,Of course, I made NO ESTIMATE of the time between the verbal warning and the shot. I linked, cited and quoted a news report from the Dallas News.
Questions and outrage after Fort Worth officer fatally shoots 28-year-old woman in her home
By Dana Branham
DallasNews.com
7:52 PM on Oct 13, 2019[excerpt]
In body-camera footage released Saturday, the officer who shot Jefferson is seen walking around the backyard of the home.About a minute-and-a-half into the video, he swivels toward a window, then yells, “Put your hands up! Show me your hands!” and fires into the window within about three seconds.
I recall seeing a four-second estimate, but I went with the shorter one.
It is a non-specific estimate qualified with the word about. It does not make believe it is accurate to the 1/100,000th of a second.
#68. To: nolu chan, Tooconservative (#67) (Edited)
From the beginning of the 'P' in "Put" (00:01:34:28) to the beginning of the gunshot sound (00:01:36:11) is 1 and 13/30ths seconds. Or 1.43333 seconds. And I am actually being generous in that measurement by a few thirthieths (sic) of a second.
A thirtieth of a second is equal to one frame of video.
Damn Matt. Only an asshole of gigantic proportions could claim to have worked out the time to the one hundred thousandth of a second.
Apparently your math is fuzzy. The numbers don't lie.
This claim features the inescapable illogic of the jackass who fantasized about the distance of the Las Vegas shooting using Google Sketch.
Like I said, you're a fucking idiot at math. So what if the number is carried out to the 100,000th of a second. Would you STFU about it and agree that it was way less than two seconds?
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#69. To: Deckard (#68)
A thirtieth of a second is equal to one frame of video.
No shit, Sherlock. You may notice that I stated, "The camera shoots 30 frames per second." The available data does not permit a scientific calculation down to a one-hundred thousandth of a second. If you do not detect a sond on one frame, and do detect that sound on the next frame, that sound began somewhere in the 1/30th second interval between the two frames.
Like I said, you're a fucking idiot at math. So what if the number is worked out to the 1000th of a second.
1.433 is calculated to the thousandth of a second. 1.43333 seconds is calculated to the one-hundred thousandth of a second. You were saying about being an idiot at math?
Calculations down to the one-hundred thousandth of a second are necessarily bullshit when purportedly derived from 30 frames per second data. Mechanical variance of the camera would also doom it to bullshit status.
I review obviously bullshit claims with the same disdain I have for flat earth claims.
Admissible evidence will be within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. Bullshit calculations are not admissible.
#70. To: nolu chan (#69)
1.433 is calculated to the thousandth of a second. 1.43333 seconds is calculated to the one-hundred thousandth of a second.
either way asshole, it's still way under a second and a half.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#71. To: Deckard, misterwhite, A K A Stone (#70)
1.433 is calculated to the thousandth of a second. 1.43333 seconds is calculated to the one-hundred thousandth of a second.either way asshole, it's still way under a second and a half.
Assume for the sake of argument that Officer Dean shot in less than a second and a half. So what? What is your unstated legal point?
State a legal claim and make your case for it.
With respect to the use of force policy,
- Did it require Officer Dean to wait 1.5 seconds before responding to a perceived deadly threat to himself or others?
- Did it require Officer Dean to try to deescalate before responding with deadly force?
- Did it require Officer Dean to issue a warning before firing?
The answer to all of the above appears to be no.
I will provide more detailed use of force policy information to enable you to stop fumbling around in the dark like a blind person.
Let us review the Use of Force policy of the Fort Worth PD, beginning with PERF ICAT, adopted in January 2018, and proceeding to the general Forth Worth PD policy of 2017 as reviewed by The Use of Force Project.
- - - - - - - - - -
PERF ICAT TRAINING
Police Executive Research Forum
Integrating Communications, Assessment and Tactics De-escalation Training
http://fortworthtexas.gov/news/2018/01/police-perf-training/
FWPD completes training that emphasizes de-escalation tacticsPosted Jan. 31, 2018
Every officer in the Fort Worth Police Department has completed training that encourages them to use a new way of thinking when it comes to crisis intervention, communication and tactics.
The training is called PERF ICAT— Police Executive Research Forum Integrating Communications, Assessment and Tactics De-escalation Training. The nationally-recognized training educates officers on the skills, knowledge and confidence needed to manage non-firearm threats, influence behavioral changes and gain voluntary compliance whenever possible. The training is a key to the department’s mission to safeguard the lives of residents and enhance public safety through building trust with the community.
The PD has recently made changes to how officers approach use-of-force situations and amended policies to incorporate de-escalation tactics. Biannual in-service training and training for new recruits have been modified to provide more tools to resolve police encounters that emphasize the safety of residents and officers.
The PD has invited city officials and members of the Chief’s Advisory Board, Policy Advisory Committee, and the Race and Culture Task Force to an ICAT training session so they can realize what is expected of officers and have a better understanding of the situations officers face each day.
Well, that sounded impressive. However, PERF ICAT training mainly benefits Officer Dean and the defense.
https://www.policeforum.org/about-icat
About ICATIntegrating Communications, Assessment, and Tactics, or ICAT, is a use-of-force Training Guide designed to fill a critical gap in training police officers in how to respond to volatile situations in which subjects are behaving erratically and often dangerously but do not possess a firearm. The Training Guide includes model lesson plans and support materials (including Power Point presentations, videos, and other resources) in the key areas of decision-making, crisis recognition and response, tactical communications and negotiations, and operational safety tactics. ICAT then integrates these skills and provides opportunities to practice them through video case studies and scenario-based training exercises.
Read the ICAT Mission Statement and Training Goals
Four Areas of Focus
The ICAT Training Guide focuses on four key areas:
Patrol officer response. In almost every situation where a subject is behaving erratically (often because of mental illness or behavioral crisis), it is a patrol officer—a “beat cop”—who is the first to respond. ICAT provides these officers with the skills and options needed to safely and effectively manage these encounters, especially in the critical first few moments after officers arrive. In many instances, the goal is for the first responding officers to buy enough time so that additional, specialized resources can get to the scene to support a safe and peaceful resolution.
Non-firearms incidents. ICAT focuses on those critical incidents in which the subject is unarmed or armed with a weapon other than a firearm (such as a knife, baseball bat, rocks, or other blunt instrument). Unlike situations in which the subject has a firearm and officers have few options besides lethal force, these non-firearms incidents often present officers with time and opportunity to consider a range of responses. Helping officers safely and effectively manage these types of encounters is the focus of ICAT.
Integration of crisis recognition/intervention, communications, and tactics. In recent years, a growing number of police agencies have been providing their officers with specialized training on how to interact with persons who are in crisis because of mental health issues or other factors. ICAT builds on those efforts by integrating communications and tactical skills with crisis intervention approaches. This integrated approach is presented in the context of a Critical Decision-Making Model that helps patrol officers develop and think through their options in these challenging non-firearms incidents.
Officer safety and wellness. ICAT is centered on PERF’s Guiding Principle #1: “The sanctity of human life should be at the heart of everything an agency does.” The Training Guide focuses on protecting officers from both physical threats and emotional harm. This is accomplished by equipping officers with the tools, techniques and skills needed to slow down some situations and pursue options for safely resolving them. The goal is to help officers avoid reaching the point where their lives or the lives of others become endangered and the officers have no choice but to use lethal force.
Read How the ICAT Training Guide Was Created
Flexible and Adaptable
PERF encourages police agencies and academies to be creative in how they choose to use the ICAT Training Guide.
- Some may decide to present ICAT as a stand-alone training program, for recruit or in-service training, or both.
- Other agencies may choose to incorporate the ICAT training modules into existing programs on de-escalation, tactical communications or crisis intervention.
- Still other agencies may want to take elements of individual modules and create their own lesson plans that are tailored for their agencies and communities.
- And because many skills (such as tactical communications) are perishable and need to be reinforced and practiced on a regular basis, some agencies may choose to include elements of ICAT in their roll call or team training exercises.
ICAT is designed to be flexible enough to accommodate these and other approaches. However, it is critical that whatever approach is used, the agency or academy focus on the integration of skills, and not present the material in training “silos.” This focus on integration is what makes ICAT unique.
PERF ICAT training does not include subjects with a firearm. Shit, that looked so promising too. Introduce a firearm into the equation and PERF ICAT goes out the window. Introduce a firearm and PERF ICAT has no application whatever. Incidents with firearms are subject to a very different policy.
Repeated for emphasis.
Non-firearms incidents. ICAT focuses on those critical incidents in which the subject is unarmed or armed with a weapon other than a firearm (such as a knife, baseball bat, rocks, or other blunt instrument). Unlike situations in which the subject has a firearm and officers have few options besides lethal force, these non-firearms incidents often present officers with time and opportunity to consider a range of responses.
PERF ICAT redounds to the benefit of the defense of Officer Dean as it makes clear that asituation with a subject armed with a firearm is handled differently from all the other situations, and the officers have few options besides lethal force.
- - - - - - - - - -
FORT WORTH PD USE OF FORCE POLICY AS REVIEWED BY THE USE OF FORCE PROJECT
http://useofforceproject.org/#review
We reviewed the use of force policies of America's 100 largest city police departments to determine whether they include meaningful protections against police violence. Click the boxes below to view details for each policy.[...]
Below is the use of force policy, including the use of deadly force on a subject armed with a firearm, for Forth Worth as documented by the above review of the Use of Force Project.
- - - - - - - - - -
Fort WorthYear of most recent policy 2017
Requires De-Escalation:
Does the policy require officers to de-escalate situations, when possible?
• "When safely possible, an officer shall use de-escalation techniques consistent with department training whenever possible and appropriate before resorting to force and to reduce the need for force.”Bans Chokeholds and Strangleholds:
Are chokeholds and strangleholds Gncluding carotid restraints) explicitly prohibited, except in situations where deadly force is authorized?
• "Officers are prohibited from using choke holds and other types of neck-restrain ing tech niques except when protecting them selves or others against an imminent threat of serious bodily and death."Duty to Intervene:
Are officers required to intervene when witnessing another officer using excessive force?
• "Officers have the duty to intervene when observing another officer using force that is beyond that which is objectively reasonable under the circumstances."Requires Warning Before Shooting:
Are officers required to give a verbal warning, when possible, before shooting someone?
• "If not already known by the subject to be detained, arrested, or searched, officers should, if reasonable, make clear their intent to detain, arrest or search the subject. When practicable, officers will identify themselves as a peace officer before using force"Restricts Shooting at Moving Vehicles:
Are officers prohibited from shooting at people in moving vehicles unless the subject presents a separate deadly threat other than the vehicle itself?
• 4. Officers shall not fire a weapon into a moving vehicle or at its occupant(s) unless the occupant(s) are using deadly force against the officer or another person present, by means other than the vehicle.• 5. Officers shall not place themselves in the path of a moving vehicle in a manner which may lead to the use of deadly force. If a confrontation with a moving vehicle does occur, officers shall move out of the path of the vehicle."
Requires Comprehensive Reporting:
Are all uses of force required to be reported, including the pointing of a firearm at a civilian?
Pointing a weapon at a civilian is not required to be reported.Requires Exhaust All Other Means Before Shooting:
Are officers required to exhaust all other reasonable alternatives before resorting to deadly force?
Officers not required to exhaust other reasonable means before resorting to deadly force.
"Under no circumstances will the force used by an officer be greater than necessary to make an arrest or a detention or to protect oneself or another, nor will the force be used longer than necessary to subdue the suspect, and deadly force shall not be used except as specifically provided in this directive."The use of deadly force is authorized only when it is necessary for officers to protect themselves or others from an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury.”
Has Use of Force Continuum:
Is a Force Continuum or Matrix included in the Policy, defining the types of force/weapons that can be used to respond to specific types of resistance?
Yes.
- - - - - - - - - -
#72. To: Deckard (#68)
A thirtieth of a second is equal to one frame of video.
Hmmm...how to post about this without being totally anal and too-technical...
YouBoob often does convert videos in their cloud to format more suitable to low-bandwidth or toward compatibility with more devices. They do also offer video streams that are almost byte-for-byte of the video uploaded to them.
So we can't be certain that we are seeing the exact video footage that came from Dean's cop-cam. The police might also have fed the cop-cam video into a video editor like Adobe Premiere which can also affect the format.
Anyway, the video that I downloaded direct from YouBoob was 30fps. But they offer lots of other formats, lots of other frame rates, different audio codecs and different audio formats.
In short, it's a real mess even if most of their stuff is now 480p, 720p, 1080p, 4k (2160p).
If you start converting video to various formats and exporting them to other formats, you can also have changes in video and audio formats.
At any rate, in my post which upset nolu so much, I was trying to be as accurate as I could be, given the unknowns of the cop-cam, the video editor used by the Fort Worth police, the unknown video processing that YouTube may or may not have done to it.
I did include the timecode in HH:MM:SS:frame format, exactly as I saw it in my video editor. I scrubbed the video in slo-mo at least 15-20 times, watching for the audio levels to spike, where the shouting began and ended, where the audio levels spiked way into the red with the mic overload from a gunshot so near the microphone. And the video from the cop-cam/police-department/YouTube was in 30fps format.
As for the hundred-thousandths of a second stuff, I will explain that in NTSC (old analog TV standards), we routinely had to use these kinds of conversions and be very precise to get proper results. That's because of the technical particulars of NTSC. However, much the same applies to converting film (24fps) to other formats like NTSC. Or converting PAL to NTSC (or SECAM and other video standards). So nolu is mostly exposing that he isn't a video editing nerd. If nolu went to any video editing nerd, they'd listen patiently to him with a bored look and then explain that that is just how old video nerds and techs talk about things because of the standards that prevailed across the industry for so many years.
From the beginning of the 'P' in "Put" (00:01:34:28) to the beginning of the gunshot sound (00:01:36:11) is 1 and 13/30ths seconds. Or 1.43333 seconds. And I am actually being generous in that measurement by a few thirthieths (sic) of a second.
I did post those numbers and stand by their accuracy. That is what the video shows when you really slo-mo it and watch for the beginning of the yelling, the end of the yelling, and the gunshot. I'll put my numbers up against anyone else's.
I did convert 1 and 13/30ths of a second to decimal since a lot of people really dislike these kinds of fractions and they make reading more difficult. 1.43 seconds is much easier for people to grasp. I did include the 1.43333 but should have included an ellipsis (...) to indicate it was a repeating decimal number. I did put that last '333' on there to indicate that it was repeating. But that came from my calculator, not the video. Just type 13 / 30 into your calulator and you too will see 1.43333... as the decimal result.
At any rate, nolu, if my calculator scared you or offended you, I apologize. But I do not back down one iota from my original post on when the yelling started, when the yelling stopped, and when the gunshot began. I also still think that there was a slight grunting noise just as the cop opened his mouth to start yelling, a subvocalization. And I think he made some kind of grunting noise just as he fired. I hope readers understand that our brains are kind of clunky gadgets and they do lots of funny things that we never notice unless we use very high-speed cameras to measure our own mental processes.
#73. To: nolu chan, Deckard (#71) (Edited)
I will provide more detailed use of force policy information to enable you to stop fumbling around in the dark like a blind person.
You mean, kind of like Officer Dean fumbling around in the dark before murdering an innocent homeowner he frightened into picking up a handgun to defend herself and her nephew?
Snark aside, I really haven't seen much new info about this case coming out. The initial police statement has been made, Dean refused and continues to refuse to answer any questions or provide a police report, the other officer present has filed her report and is being cited as a witness for the prosecution, and the family has one of the usual ambulance-chasers and they've given lots of interviews. As a result of public outrage, the mayor and the chief of police held another big press conference - a veritable mea culpa - which was probably as much about politics as justice.
But other than that, I haven't seen any fresh reporting or release of any vital information about evidence in the case.
So I think I'm going to try to desist from posting more on this particular case until we actually get some new or fresh info about it. Maybe you two should consider the same.
Of course, simians do enjoy flinging their poop at others but we all draw the line at different points so you'll have to decide what you personally think is worth spending your time on.
#74. To: misterwhite (#14)
I thought the message was, "Don't point a loaded gun out the window at someone standing outside".
I get it. You never should resist. It does not matter if they are criminals, because there is a chance that they might be police.
The purpose of legal system is to protect LEO at any cost.
#75. To: Tooconservative (#72)
I did convert 1 and 13/30ths of a second to decimal since a lot of people really dislike these kinds of fractions and they make reading more difficult. 1.43 seconds is much easier for people to grasp. I did include the 1.43333 but should have included an ellipsis (...) to indicate it was a repeating decimal number.
It was obvious to me and anyone else other than nolu that was exactly what you meant. For crying out loud, that's just basic 7th grade math (or maybe even sixth grade).
I wonder what his response would be if your calculation was carried out to 1.43333333333 or longer.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#76. To: A Pole (#74)
I get it. You never should resist. It does not matter if they are criminals, because there is a chance that they might be police.The purpose of legal system is to protect LEO at any cost.
Apparently nolu and whitey's response is no different. One should always assume that someone prowling in your yard in the middle of the night is a cop.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#77. To: Deckard (#76)
One should always assume that someone prowling in your yard in the middle of the night is a cop.
More. If someone orders you to give him money, you ought to comply. Why? Because it might be asset forfeiture.
You never know, it could be nolu or whitey. Submit and obey!
#78. To: A Pole (#74)
I get it. You never should resist.
Then you don't get it. The message was, "Don't point a loaded gun out the window at someone standing outside".
#79. To: Tooconservative (#72)
A thirtieth of a second is equal to one frame of video.Hmmm...how to post about this without being totally anal and too-technical...
YouBoob often does convert videos in their cloud to format more suitable to low-bandwidth or toward compatibility with more devices. They do also offer video streams that are almost byte-for-byte of the video uploaded to them.
So we can't be certain that we are seeing the exact video footage that came from Dean's cop-cam. The police might also have fed the cop-cam video into a video editor like Adobe Premiere which can also affect the format.
Anyway, the video that I downloaded direct from YouBoob was 30fps. But they offer lots of other formats, lots of other frame rates, different audio codecs and different audio formats.
In short, it's a real mess even if most of their stuff is now 480p, 720p, 1080p, 4k (2160p).
If you start converting video to various formats and exporting them to other formats, you can also have changes in video and audio formats.
At any rate, in my post which upset nolu so much, I was trying to be as accurate as I could be, given the unknowns of the cop-cam, the video editor used by the Fort Worth police, the unknown video processing that YouTube may or may not have done to it.
I did include the timecode in HH:MM:SS:frame format, exactly as I saw it in my video editor. I scrubbed the video in slo-mo at least 15-20 times, watching for the audio levels to spike, where the shouting began and ended, where the audio levels spiked way into the red with the mic overload from a gunshot so near the microphone. And the video from the cop-cam/police-department/YouTube was in 30fps format.
As for the hundred-thousandths of a second stuff, I will explain that in NTSC (old analog TV standards), we routinely had to use these kinds of conversions and be very precise to get proper results. That's because of the technical particulars of NTSC. However, much the same applies to converting film (24fps) to other formats like NTSC. Or converting PAL to NTSC (or SECAM and other video standards). So nolu is mostly exposing that he isn't a video editing nerd. If nolu went to any video editing nerd, they'd listen patiently to him with a bored look and then explain that that is just how old video nerds and techs talk about things because of the standards that prevailed across the industry for so many years.
From the beginning of the 'P' in "Put" (00:01:34:28) to the beginning of the gunshot sound (00:01:36:11) is 1 and 13/30ths seconds. Or 1.43333 seconds. And I am actually being generous in that measurement by a few thirthieths (sic) of a second.I did post those numbers and stand by their accuracy. That is what the video shows when you really slo-mo it and watch for the beginning of the yelling, the end of the yelling, and the gunshot. I'll put my numbers up against anyone else's.
I did convert 1 and 13/30ths of a second to decimal since a lot of people really dislike these kinds of fractions and they make reading more difficult. 1.43 seconds is much easier for people to grasp. I did include the 1.43333 but should have included an ellipsis (...) to indicate it was a repeating decimal number. I did put that last '333' on there to indicate that it was repeating. But that came from my calculator, not the video. Just type 13 / 30 into your calulator and you too will see 1.43333... as the decimal result.
At any rate, nolu, if my calculator scared you or offended you, I apologize. But I do not back down one iota from my original post on when the yelling started, when the yelling stopped, and when the gunshot began. I also still think that there was a slight grunting noise just as the cop opened his mouth to start yelling, a subvocalization. And I think he made some kind of grunting noise just as he fired. I hope readers understand that our brains are kind of clunky gadgets and they do lots of funny things that we never notice unless we use very high-speed cameras to measure our own mental processes.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-10-28 9:13:23 ET
Hmmm...how to rebut/dismiss all this without being totally anal and too-technical...
The police body-worn cameras record 30 fps.
#80. To: Tooconservative (#73)
I will provide more detailed use of force policy information to enable you to stop fumbling around in the dark like a blind person.You mean, kind of like Officer Dean fumbling around in the dark before murdering an innocent homeowner he frightened into picking up a handgun to defend herself and her nephew?
Meaning that the use of force policies, to which you are unable or unwilling to respond in substance, show that when Atatiana Jefferson took her gun and aimed it out the window, Officer Dean's requirement to give a warning or attempt deescalation ended.
The PERF ICAT use of force protocol no longer applied. It does not apply to any use of force incident by a subject with a firearm. PERF ICAT observed that in situations in which the subject has a firearm, "officers have few options besides lethal force." The more general use of force policy does not require a warning or attempt at deescalation in a situation with a subject armed with a gun.
Snark aside, I really haven't seen much new info about this case coming out. The initial police statement has been made....
You have seen the use of force policies.
#81. To: A Pole, misterwhite (#74)
The purpose of legal system is to protect LEO at any cost.
Amber Guyger is in prison
The use of force policy serves to permit achieving the primary goal: at shift's end, the officer returns home alive.
When Atatiana Jefferson picked up a gun and aimed it out the window, Officer Dean's requirement to issue a warning before the use of deadly force, or to attempt to deescalate, disappeared.
#82. To: misterwhite (#78)
Then you don't get it. The message was ...
I cannot get it. I have those glasses on, you know.
#83. To: All (#82)
The message was ...I cannot get it. I have those glasses on, you know.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]