[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

More sober drivers are being arrested for DUI in Phoenix

“He Didn’t Just Die, Did He?”

No One is Immune to Police Misconduct…Including Retired Police!

Since Feeding the Homeless Is Illegal, Activists Carry AR-15s to Give Out Food, Supplies

Virginia Sheriff: ‘I Will Deputize Thousands of Citizens To Protect Their Gun Rights’

Pope Francis Declares That Christian Fundamentalists Are “A Scourge”

U.S. officials misled public on Afghan war

Democrats to announce articles of impeachment against Trump on Tuesday

How Trump May Finally Kill the WTO

Impeachment Gets Weird

OAN Stunning Lutsenko Interview – Outlines: Marie Yovanovitch Perjury, George Kent Impeachment Motive, Lindsey Graham Motive to Bury Investigation…

Hillary Clinton emerges as top choice of Democratic voters in Harvard-Harris presidential poll

BREAKING: US Attorney John Durham Releases Statement Disputing IG Report Conclusions

Judiciary Hearing Devolves As Democrats Reuse Their Witness To Question Other Witnesses

BREAKING: DOJ IG Report on FISA Applications is Finally Released — AG Bill Barr BLASTS FBI: “Launched Intrusive Investigation of US Presidential Campaign”

In Plain View: Jaw-Dropping Video of LSD Promoters Holding 1979 Meeting

Shiff Hits The Fan

Pope Francis Compares Trump to Murderous King Herod

At UN “Climate” Summit, Pelosi and Democrats Ignore Reality

Schiff: ‘Simply False’ We Subpoenaed Call Records of Rep. Nunes

REVEALED: Ukraine was ... The Origin of The Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax --- IT Ran RighT Through The Office of Eric Ciaramella

Indicted Oligarch Firtash praises Manafort, says Trump has third-grade smarts

House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Report Ignores ‘Expert’ Witnesses

Dershowitz: Democrat Impeachment Approach Akin to Stalin’s KGB — ‘Show Me the Man and I’ll Find You the Crime’

TURLEY: <b>'Fast and Furious' impeachment looks like a rush to a failed case</b>

Military bases across the U.S are put on high alert as FBI hunts missing Saudi servicemen linked to Pensacola shooting and probes shooter's trip to New York two days before as terror investigators are called in

California Supreme Court Closes Warrantless Vehicle Search Loophole

Bill Would Roll Back Prohibition-Era Gun Rules

House Judiciary Committee Majority Report on Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment (Dec 2019)

Fearless Leader's Mighty WALL in action

Saudi Arabia 'greatly angered' by Pensacola Navy base shooting, Trump says

Michigan Woman Facing Three Months in Jail for Two Overdue Library Books

South Florida Cops Criticized over Shootout that left Two Innocent People Dead

6 Things We Learned from Prohibition

The Transhumanist Freakshow Art of Patricia Piccinini

Reasons Why Many People Refuse The Flu Shot: Facebook Has No Right Censor This Information

Revenue Collection and Something Else

US digs into Saudi shooting suspect motive in Navy shooting

Giuliani Promises ... ‘Evidence’ of Obama AdminisTraTion InTerference --- in Ukraine

Git along little doggie, git along, git along...

Bill Barr Indicts 8 For Illegally Funneling Foreign Money To Adam Schiff And Multiple Dem Senators

George Zimmerman sues Trayvon Martin’s family & state prosecutors for $100mn, says ‘false evidence’ used in murder trial

“Lieutenant” Pederast

COME SPY WITH ME Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein were spies who used underage sex to blackmail politicians, ‘ex-handler’ claims

How Bad Are Congressional Republicans?

The Supreme Court and the Right To Keep and Bear Arms

The Panopticon Expands

63 million Americans vs. 3 liberal professors

A.G. William Barr Says Police Might Stop "Protecting" Us If We Aren't Nicer to Them. (If Only It Were That Easy To Get Rid of Bad Cops.)

Tucker Investigates: What is destroying rural America?


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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: 506
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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

Title: What if the Police Don’t Identify Themselves?

Well, then they can blast those Negroes in their own homes for no reason and they can still rely on loathsome copsuckers with a homoerotic fixation for badged and costumed public safety employees to unrelentingly defending police just blasting anyone in their own homes for pretty much any reason.

We have two prime examples of such repulsive posters still posting right here at LF. We used to have more of them but a couple of them recently stomped off in a huff because they couldn't convert the entire forum to their bizarre cop fetish.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-23   22:53:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Deckard, Pierre Delecto (#0)

[Thread article by Peter R. Quinones]

Fort Worth police showed up for a “wellness check.”

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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

That was crushed and he has started whoring the same shit, word for word, on a new street corner.

Deckard/Matt Agorist/Peter R. Quinones/Tooconservative posted on 2019-10-22 20:03:07 ET

https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=60338&Disp=75#C75

#75. To: Tooconservative (#72)

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.

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

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.

Deckard  posted on  2019-10-22   20:03:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=60338&Disp=97#C97

#97. To: Deckard, Matt Agorist (#75)

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.”

Matt. This is just bullshit.

There was never any mention of a wellness check.

On Saturday, 12 Oct 2019, the charge sheet reflected burglary.

On Monday, 14 Oct 2019, the affidavit in support of the arrest warrant reflected open structure.

Matt, I have the arrest warrant and affidavit posted with the article.

Police statements indicate they started calling it an open structure call on Saturday, 12 Oct 2019. They definitely documented it as an open structure call by Monday, 14 Oct 2019.

The TFTP incompetent bullshit is strong with this one. Two.

Matt and Matt, is this your impersonation of Mr. ROBOT?

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-23   16:16:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

- - - - - - - - - -

https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=60338&Disp=100#C100

#100. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#75)

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.

Matt, It was a burglary on the Oct. 12 call log, and it was an open structure on the subsequent press release of 12 Oct.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGsbrSzXUAMdNna.jpg

Fort Worth Texas Police

PRESS RELEASE

For Immediate Release

Oct. 12, 2019

FORT WORTH, Texas — Serving the public transparently and openly during good events and difficult events is a prerequisite to any professional police department. The Fort Worth Police Department is committed to ensuring the public is aware of major police incidents, especially officer involved shootings, and that details available arc released as quickly as possible given the gravity of the circumstances. On Saturday. Oct. 12, 2019, the Fort Worth Police Department responded to a call for service that resulted in the loss of a life and all evidence, witness statements, body camera footage, and any other available evidence is being collected and collated to ultimately be presented to the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office to determine the final outcome.

Near 02:25 a.m.. Fort Worth Police Central Division officers responded to an Open Structure call for service in the 1200 block of E. Allen Ave. Details stated the front door to the residence was open. Responding officers searched the perimeter of the house and observed a person standing inside the residence near a window. Perceiving a threat the officer drew his duty weapon and fired one shot striking the person inside the residence. Officers entered the residence locating the individual and a firearm and began providing emergency medical care.

The individual, a black female, who resides at the residence succumbed to her injuries and was pronounced deceased on the scene. The officer, a white male who has been with the department since April of 2018. has been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome the critical police incident investigation. The Fort Worth Police Major Case unit. Internal Affairs unit and the Tarrant County Criminal District Attorney’s Law Enforcement Incident Team were notified and made lhe scene to conduct their aspect of the investigation to ensure all information and evidence was captured and preserved.

The Fort Worth Police Department is releasing available body camera footage to provide transparent and relevant information to the public as we arc allowed within the confines of the Public Information Act and forthcoming investigation. Camera footage inside the residence is not able to be released based on Public Information laws. The Fort Worth Police Department shares the deep concerns of the public and is committed to completing an extremely thorough investigation of this critical police incident to its resolution. As this investigation continues, information will be forthcoming in as timely a manner as possible.

@fortworthpd

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-23   17:21:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

https://www.scribd.com/document/431151697/Aaron-Dean-Arrest-Warrant-ico-Atatiana-Jefferson

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-24   9:29:55 ET  (2 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Deckard, Pierre Delecto (#0)

https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=60338&Disp=96#C96

#96. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite, A K A Stone (#73)

[nolu chan #65]

[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.

- - - - - - - - - -

[Tooconservative #73]

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.

Matt, you are a unmitigated asshole.

First, you were too dumb, stupid, or lazy to check or quote whatever imaginary Texas Statute that you fantacize is in support of your bullshit at #49.

You huff and puff, but you offer nothing to support your bullshit at #49 with more bullshit at #73, which descended lower at #74.

[Tooconservative #74] The police receive deference to their authority only if they identify themselves and present credentials. This is buttressed by making certain that the public can see their uniform as well as their badge.

As with #49 and #73, you pulled that out of your ass, not out of a lawbook or statute.

The Texas criminal statute on assault provides:

ASSAULT.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person:

[...]

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or

[...]

(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed against:

(1) a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant;

[...]

(d) For purposes of Subsection (b), the actor is presumed to have known the person assaulted was a public servant, a security officer, or emergency services personnel if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person's employment as a public servant or status as a security officer or emergency services personnel.

[...]

Matt, what is the source of your bullshit? Your ass?

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-23   16:14:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-24   9:31:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: nolu chan (#2)

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 (here) willing to defend the actions of officer Dean should come as no surprise.

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.

Deckard  posted on  2019-10-24   9:33:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Deckard, Pierre Delecto (#4)

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.

The Texas criminal statute on assault provides:

ASSAULT.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person:

[...]

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or

[...]

(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed against:

(1) a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant;

[...]

(d) For purposes of Subsection (b), the actor is presumed to have known the person assaulted was a public servant, a security officer, or emergency services personnel if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person's employment as a public servant or status as a security officer or emergency services personnel.

[...]

CAN YOU SEE IT NOW???

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-24   11:33:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Deckard (#4)

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.

How could the victim see a badge in the dark? How could she see a black uniform?

It appears to me that Fort Worth PD has flat black uniforms for daily patrol duties. They seem to have navy blue uniforms for dress occasions and ceremonies. And their cops on bikes and horses also seem to wear dark navy uniforms for everyday patrol duties.

In the dark of night in an unlighted backyard, there is no difference between a dark navy uniform and a black uniform. And badges don't glow in the dark. And nothing can be seen when someone outside in the dark is pointing a flashlight in your eyes while screaming for no more than 1.43333 seconds before blasting you through your bedroom window.

The law only protects cops who have shown their badge and their uniform. And Dean/Larch chose not to present their badges/uniforms.

I wouldn't be surprised if this ends Larch's career in the PD. As senior officer, she should have insisted that they identify themselves to the home's residents. I'm pretty sure it will play out that way.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-24   13:30:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Tooconservative (#6) (Edited)

How could the victim see a badge in the dark? How could she see a black uniform?

Well Matt, nolu sham seems to believe that Atatiana Jefferson should have "presumed" that it was Dean in her backyard and not a burglar. Even though Dean failed on several occasions to announce himself as the police and was pointing a light directly into the window making it impossible for her to see who it was outside, Atatiana should have possessed psychic ability or some such nonsense to determine that it was a cop in her yard.

After all, cops are well-known for prowling around people's yards and snooping in windows at zero-dark-thirty, right?

The message from nolu (and whitey) is that the homeowner is not legally allowed to protect their home with a gun, because it might be the police and not a bad guy outside.

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.

Deckard  posted on  2019-10-24   15:09:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Deckard (#7)

Well Matt, nolu sham seems to believe that Atatiana Jefferson should have "presumed" that it was Dean in her backyard and not a burglar.

But no one reaches for their gun if they think there is a cop outside. At least no one does if they're not some gangbanger 3-time loser.

nolu's probably off abusing himself with some old CHIPs photos and a set of handcuffs or something, muttering "Oh, yeah, do it harder, Matt!"

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-24   16:26:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Tooconservative (#6)

[Tooconservative #6] How could the victim see a badge in the dark? How could she see a black uniform?

Matt, how would a blind or severely vision-impaired person see a uniform and badge in the light or the dark?

Matt, do you view it as perfectly acceptable and lawful for a blind person to wave a loaded gun about, pointing it at someone?

The Texas law makes one responsible for being able to see what they are aiming at.

Under Texas statute law, " (a) A person commits an offense if the person: ... intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed against: (1) a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant; ... (d) For purposes of Subsection (b), the actor is presumed to have known the person assaulted was a public servant, a security officer, or emergency services personnel if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person's employment as a public servant or status as a security officer or emergency services personnel."

The Texas statute clearly states the law. Whatever you aim your gun at, you are responsible for knowing what you are aiming at. If you aim at an officer in a distinctive uniform or with a displayed badge, you are responsible and are presumed, under the law, to have known that the person was a public servant, a security officer, or emergency services personnel.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-25   12:21:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#7)

Well Matt, nolu sham seems to believe that Atatiana Jefferson should have "presumed" that it was Dean in her backyard and not a burglar. Even though Dean failed on several occasions to announce himself as the police and was pointing a light directly into the window making it impossible for her to see who it was outside, Atatiana should have possessed psychic ability or some such nonsense to determine that it was a cop in her yard.

Matt, once again, protocol for a burglary or open structure is to NOT announce one's presence as there may be an amred intruder present. As previously noted, the senior person present did not announce their presence.

The Texas statute clearly states the law. Whatever you aim your gun at, you are responsible for knowing what you are aiming at. If you aim at an officer in a distinctive uniform or with a displayed badge, you are responsible and are presumed, under the law, to have known that the person was a public servant, a security officer, or emergency services personnel.

When confronted by Texas statutes, I do not always choose outside counsel, but when I do, it is a salesperson from New York City, the most interesting source of law in the world. Not. Stay stupid my friend.

[From thread article]

Peter R. Quinones

Peter R. Quinones is managing editor of the Libertarian Institute and hosts the Free Man Beyond the Wall podcast. He released his first book, Freedom Through Memedom – The 31-day Guide to Waking Up to Liberty in November 2017. It reached #4 in the Libertarian Section on Amazon. He has spoken at Liberty Forum in Manchester, New Hampshire and is currently co-producing a documentary entitled, “The Monopoly on Violence,” which is scheduled for a 2020 release. It will feature the most prominent figures in libertarianism explaining how nations states came into existence, the atrocities they commit and what a truly open libertarian society would look like. Contact him at pete@libertarianinstitute.org

[From Amazon]

https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Through-Memedom-31-Day-Liberty/dp/1978400810/

Freedom Through Memedom: The 31-Day Guide to Waking Up to Liberty 1st Edition

by Mance Rayder (Author), Peter Raymond (Author), Scott Horton (Foreword)

Paperback: 96 pages
Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; 1 edition (November 19, 2017)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1978400810
ISBN-13: 978-1978400818

https://www.amazon.com/Dream-Factory-Peter-Quinones/dp/0595257216/

About the Author

Peter Quinones is a salesperson and speaker from New York City. Janice Malkotsis is a writer and editor from Long Island, New York.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-25   12:24:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: nolu chan, Deckard, misterwhite (#9)

Matt, do you view it as perfectly acceptable and lawful for a blind person to wave a loaded gun about, pointing it at someone?

Do you view it as perfectly acceptable and lawful for a cop to skulk about a property without any evidence of a crime in progress and then blindly shoot a homeowner alarmed by their skulking because the homeowner picked up a gun to defend themselves and a family member?

(d) For purposes of Subsection (b), the actor is presumed to have known the person assaulted was a public servant, a security officer, or emergency services personnel if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person's employment as a public servant or status as a security officer or emergency services personnel."

You can keep posting this until you wear out your CTRL-C and CTRL-V keys and have to buy a new keyboard. This law only applies if the officer is clearly discerned as a legitimate lawful authority, by presenting themselves in uniform, with a badge. Not skulking around and then blasting someone to announce their presence.

The prosecutors will make very short work of any such defense. As you will learn in due course. Until then, copy/paste it all you like here at little LF but that isn't going to affect the outcome of the case. I can virtually guarantee you that this will not be the backbone of Dean's defense at trial. Because if that were the case, they would not have charged him with murder, would not have been able to get an arrest warrant for a non-crime, and Dean's lawyer(s) would already be filing motions to dismiss the case because immunity is protecting Dean. That is not the case. The PD, its current chief and other former high-ranking police officials, all support the prosecution. The other cop on the scene is going to testify against him. The prosecutor is dotting I's and crossing T's under Texas law by assembling a grand jury to indict him formally, subsequent to his arrest. And no judge is stopping them and no challenge based on Dean's immunity has been offered.

Maybe you should volunteer to be Dean's lawyer. You could solve this whole hullabaloo for him just by citing that little statute to a judge and getting the case thrown out, toute suite.

But that isn't what is happening, is it? How disappointing it must be for you that Dean's lawyers aren't as smart as you are. Maybe you should write them a letter of legal tips.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-25   12:36:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Deckard, nolu chan, misterwhite (#7)

After all, cops are well-known for prowling around people's yards and snooping in windows at zero-dark-thirty, right?

I know. The police prowl every backyard unannounced night and day here in my town. I'm sure it's the practice across the nation. ‹/sarcasm

The message from nolu (and whitey) is that the homeowner is not legally allowed to protect their home with a gun, because it might be the police and not a bad guy outside.

The problem is that this demolishes any right to self-defense because that guy with a gun can get the drop on you before you, the innocent homeowner defending your family and property, has a chance to respond. Castle doctrine holds very strongly the right to self-defense, the defense of property, etc.

Perhaps nolu and misterwhite would like to pass some laws that require all criminals to announce themselves, wear badges and uniforms instead of having the cops do that. That way, the homeowner could see the burglars and rapists and murderers clearly because they had badges/uniforms and announced their presence as a criminal and then the homeowner could finally lawfully reach for a gun to defend themselves and their family.

Really, nolu and misterwhite are turning the right to self-defense entirely on its ears. It's bizarre, a perverse notion of of the American right to self-defense even. It's why their rhetoric sounds so repulsive.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-25   12:42:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: nolu chan (#10)

Peter R. Quinones is managing editor of the Libertarian Institute and hosts the Free Man Beyond the Wall podcast. He released his first book, Freedom Through Memedom – The 31-day Guide to Waking Up to Liberty in November 2017.

Alternate text if image doesn't load

Those terms "libertarian" and "liberty" sure do scare you copsuckers.

Whatever you aim your gun at, you are responsible for knowing what you are aiming at.

Unless you're 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.

Deckard  posted on  2019-10-25   12:44:57 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Deckard (#7)

The message from nolu (and whitey) is that the homeowner is not legally allowed to protect their home with a gun, because it might be the police and not a bad guy outside.

I thought the message was, "Don't point a loaded gun out the window at someone standing outside".

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-25   14:34:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Tooconservative (#11) (Edited)

because the homeowner picked up a gun to defend themselves

The homeowner picked up a gun and pointed it out the window at someone they hadn't identified.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-25   14:36:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Tooconservative (#12)

The problem is that this demolishes any right to self-defense because that guy with a gun can get the drop on you before you, the innocent homeowner defending your family and property, has a chance to respond.

Bullshit. Had she pointed the gun and fired, the cop would be dead. She hesitated. She lost.

The bottom line is she never should have pointed the gun. Get the gun out of the purse, sure, but hold it downward, preferably hidden.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-25   14:42:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: misterwhite (#15)

They picked up a gun and pointed it out the window at someone they hadn't identified.

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're in for a rude wake-up call from a Texas jury. And it won't take all that long.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-25   14:42:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Tooconservative (#17)

And to you that warrants a death sentence for the innocent homeowner

The cop didn't know that was an innocent homeowner. She never identified herself. It was simply someone pointing a gun at him.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-25   14:46:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: misterwhite (#16)

Bullshit. Had she pointed the gun and fired, the cop would be dead. She hesitated. She lost.

You are treating her as being as deserving of death for pointing a gun as she would be for a cold-blooded premeditated murder of a cop. 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. Same result for her.

The mayor and the chief of police both say you're dead wrong about this. She was blameless. That is the official position of the mayor, the council, the PD chief, and the prosecutor.

You're in for a big disappointment when this goes to trial. And, as with nolu's sad attempts to justify this murder by cop, if your idea of a legal defense for Dean is so viable, then why haven't his attorneys even made an attempt to dismiss the charges entirely?

Yet everyone denies that Dean has any immunity from criminal prosecution or civil immunity that covers his homicide of this poor resident with a lawful CCW and a nephew to protect.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-25   14:47:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Tooconservative (#17)

You're in for a rude wake-up call from a Texas jury.

If I'm on it he walks. Self defense. You have to judge his behavior on what he knew at the time, not two weeks later when all the facts are in.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-25   14:49:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#18)

The cop didn't know that was an innocent homeowner.

His job is to determine who is a criminal and who is not in real time. And to announce his presence as a law enforcement officer engaged in legitimate law enforcement duties.

The laws are not complex. The police department policy is not unworkable.

Dean will have no immunity from prosecution as you seem to imagine.

Maybe Dean should hire you and nolu as his legal dream team.

Let me hear you say, "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit".

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-25   14:50:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Tooconservative (#19)

You are treating her as being as deserving of death for pointing a gun

Deserving of death? A bit over the top, no?

I'm saying, and have said, that when you point a gun at someone they have a right to defend themselves.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-25   14:53:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Tooconservative (#21)

His job is to determine who is a criminal and who is not in real time.

You mean in the 1.44 seconds as you calculated? That real time?

What about the homeowner? She's allowed to just blast away without determining if it's the police outside her window?

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-25   14:57:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: misterwhite, Tooconservative (#16) (Edited)

They picked up a gun and pointed it out the window at someone they hadn't identified.

Atatiana Jefferson's nephew said she pointed a gun out of a window before a Fort Worth police officer shot her. Her family and the police chief say she had every right to do so.

press release from the Fort Worth Police department said that Dean saw a person standing near a window while searching the home's perimeter and drew his weapon.

  • The Fort Worth Police Department's interim police chief, Ed Kraus, defended Jefferson's decision to carry a gun. 

  • Lee Merritt, a lawyer for Jefferson's family, said she had every right to defend herself, and echoed the fact that officers did not announce themselves when they were on Jefferson's property.

    Also, there's this: The warrant doesn’t say Dean told police he saw a weapon, but it does say his partner could only see Jefferson’s face in the window before Dean opened fire.

    If he had indeed seen a gun, one would think he would be telling everyone in Texas - instead, after realizing he screwed the pooch big time, he resigned before he could be fired.

    The guy was basically a rookie with what, a year on the force? Maybe he didn't realize that history has shown if he had made up some bullshit story about seeing a gun, chances are he'd be given a two-week vacation (suspension) while the department "investigated" the incident and escaped any kind of punishment.

Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
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.

Deckard  posted on  2019-10-25   14:57:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Tooconservative (#21)

Let me hear you say, "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit".

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-25   14:59:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Deckard (#24)

The warrant doesn’t say Dean told police he saw a weapon ...

Does the warrant say Dean told police he didn't see a weapon? The nephew said she had one and pointed it out the window.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-25   15:03:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#20)

If I'm on it he walks. Self defense.

No doubt his lawyer will try to exploit that angle.

And the prosecutor will be doing plenty of voir dire to stop such jurors as you from being seated on the jury.

It seems you are ready to engage in some jury nullification now. I thought you were fiercely opposed to that.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-25   15:05:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: misterwhite (#23)

You mean in the 1.44 seconds as you calculated? That real time?

His job is not to shoot innocent people. First and foremost. He's supposed to be there for public safety, not to just blast people at random if he gets frightened after he broke recognized police department policy by refusing to take any opportunity to announce his lawful presence. And a woman died due to his criminal negligence. And so he has been charged with murder. And he will be convicted, likely in less than six months.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-25   15:07:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Tooconservative (#27)

It seems you are ready to engage in some jury nullification now.

No need. The law on self-defense is clear.

"And the prosecutor will be doing plenty of voir dire to stop such jurors as you from being seated on the jury."

The jurors who apply the law, you mean?

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-25   15:10:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Deckard (#24)

Also, there's this: The warrant doesn’t say Dean told police he saw a weapon, but it does say his partner could only see Jefferson’s face in the window before Dean opened fire.

No one has even established if Dean could actually see the resident's gun through the window. We have a photo of a bedroom window with a bullet hole in it but with the blinds pulled more than halfway. If they were in that position during the shooting, we have good reason to doubt that Dean could even have seen and accurately identified a gun in her hand. If he couldn't see well, it could have been the game controller for the game console she and her nephew were gaming on. It could even have been a plastic replica gun or rifle used to play shooting games on the gaming console.

It could be germane as to whether Dean could even have seen the gun in her hand. He may have just blasted a dimly seen black person, seen partially through blinds at night while trying to discriminate the dark background, the lighted window and his own flashlight's very bright beam. It is not a good situation for anyone to discern targets with any accuracy.

The simply story is this: a fraidy-cop didn't announce his lawful presence and blasted a homeowner without any justification. And that will convict him.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-25   15:13:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite (#27)

It seems you are ready to engage in some jury nullification now. I thought you were fiercely opposed to that.

Alternate text if image doesn't load

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.

Deckard  posted on  2019-10-25   15:18:01 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Tooconservative (#30)

No one has even established if Dean could actually see the resident's gun through the window. We have a photo of a bedroom window with a bullet hole in it but with the blinds pulled more than halfway. If they were in that position during the shooting, we have good reason to doubt that Dean could even have seen and accurately identified a gun in her hand.

I watched the body-cam video again - the light he was pointing into the window was reflecting off the glass. He couldn't really see much of anything IMO.

Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
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.

Deckard  posted on  2019-10-25   15:20:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Tooconservative (#28)

His job is not to shoot innocent people.

You do this on every one of these types of stories. You wait until all the facts are in, then judge all the players based on those facts.

At the exact time of the shooting, he didn't know she was innocent. Or guilty. Or the homeowner. Or a burglar. Or an armed felon who had just murdered the occupants.

The police were sent on an open door call. The front door was open. It was 2:30 am and lights were on. Suddenly a figure appears in the window with a gun pointed right at him, and you expect him to somehow know she's innocent ... in 1.44 seconds.

Why didn't SHE say something?

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-25   15:23:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Deckard (#32)

He couldn't really see much of anything IMO

Wasn't there a light on in the room?

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-25   15:24:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Tooconservative (#30)

If he couldn't see well, it could have been the game controller for the game console she and her nephew were gaming on. It could even have been a plastic replica gun or rifle used to play shooting games on the gaming console.

The nephew said she took a REAL gun out of her purse and pointed it out the window.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-25   15:28:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#33)

You do this on every one of these types of stories. You wait until all the facts are in, then judge all the players based on those facts.

But you are the only one here who has already stated categorically that you will exonerate him no matter what, Mr. Foreman.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-25   15:38:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Deckard, TooConservative, misterwhite, nolu chan, GrandIsland (#0)

For all the responses & analyses I've read from on both sides of this issue regarding this incident, the real problem or blame seems to be the matter of basic protocol and policy.

Who really bears the responsibility?

IS this an LE problem? The judiciary? Anti-2A Globalist-Elites?

Who is purposely re-interpreting our laws and setting up protocol & policy so that they lack common sense & common courtesy while humiliating & disrespecting the American citizenry? Isn't this exactly what we're experiencing?)

The drip-drip of over-officiousness and intrusiveness we've been witnessing has coincidentally started just after 9/11, has it not??

Here is what reportedly happened to jump-start this incident:

* A neighbor called police to report that her front door was ajar at 2AM.*

Q: What is any "neighbor" doing up at 2:00AM? Even IF is was merely "ajar" as reported and NOT "opened," WHY did a simple slightly opened door warrant calling the Police? "Wellness Check," my azz.

None of this makes any sense.

WHY didn’t the investigating LE bother knocking at the door IF it was indeed a "Wellness Check"??

WHY did the investigating LE decide instead to "pull their guns and lurk around the outside of the house' with "flashlights" (which by then was un-Godly hour? (Might other neighbors be alarmed and awakened to report IT as "potential criminal intruders"?)

Again, more non-sense.

WHO has green-lighted this ongoing OFFICIAL(?) 20-year long policy of intrusiveness, anti-privacy, anti-personal space, and anti-Constitutional assault on the American people?

Given these two factors lurking as the elephant in the room, why are people seemingly always willing to overlook or consider that it's AN AGENDA and not rogue LE at the root of this as well as countless similar problems?

Many can't help but notice a trend (since the imposition of the Patriot Act) afoot in which Americans have been victimized by this sure but steady erosion and violation of Constitutional Rights....

...whether it's via LE home invasion, shot dogs, OR as routine violations of our personal, domestic, OR state or national space & sovereignty. ALL sovereignty is being dismantled before our eyes.

Can it be said (and observed) that we have been conditioned and programmed like hamsters to accept a tacit "Right of the State to impose its will to intrude upon us; to invade our home? To spy on us? To intimidate, coerce, and otherwise dismiss and crush dissent and pre-911 liberties?

What's the next "Stage"?

Liberator  posted on  2019-10-25   16:21:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Liberator (#37)

WHY didn’t the investigating LE bother knocking at the door IF it was indeed a "Wellness Check"??

You need to read the story and catch up on the facts before asking questions.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-25   17:04:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Tooconservative (#36)

But you are the only one here who has already stated categorically that you will exonerate him no matter what, Mr. Foreman.

Not "no matter what". I would exonerate him based on the facts presented so far.

It's not the cop's fault he was told it was an "open structure" call whereby they don't announce their presence. It's not his fault that a person suddenly appeared in the window with a gun pointed at him.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-25   17:12:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Liberator (#37)

WHY didn’t the investigating LE bother knocking at the door IF it was indeed a "Wellness Check"??

The neighbor called the cops and asked them to do a wellness check, which was ignored - the police changed it to an "open residence" call which apparently gives them the right to ignore all police protocols, refuse to identify themselves and allowed Officer Dean (the murderer) to open fire on an innocent woman without identifying himself as police.

Even he has not claimed that he saw a gun - he shouted "get your hands up" but shot and killed Atatiana Jefferson even before he finished that sentence.

Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
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.

Deckard  posted on  2019-10-25   17:18:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite (#11)

Do you view it as perfectly acceptable and lawful for a cop to skulk about a property without any evidence of a crime in progress and then blindly shoot a homeowner

Do you find it perfectly acceptable to lie that a cop was skulking about?

Do you find it perfectly acceptable to lie that a cop was not authorized to be where he was at?

Do you find it perfectly acceptable to lie that a cop blindly shot a homeowner .

The cop was duly authorized to be there. He responded to a call to go there. He followed protocol for the call he was given. He did not shoot blindly. His flashlight revealed a person with a gun aimed at him. YOU FORGOT ABOUT HER GUN AND HIS FLASHLIGHT. He hit his target with one shot.

You can keep posting this until you wear out your CTRL-C and CTRL-V keys and have to buy a new keyboard. This law only applies if the officer is clearly discerned as a legitimate lawful authority, by presenting themselves in uniform, with a badge. Not skulking around and then blasting someone to announce their presence.

Your bullshit does not change the Texas statute.

I can virtually guarantee you that this will not be the backbone of Dean's defense at trial.

You cannot guarantee a damn thing because you know nothing except:

You "knew" the cops faked a video of the gun.

You have stated

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

It's #FakeVideo. They edited it.

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.

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

The window that he shot through to murder this woman. Looks like he shot her in the face. Those autopsy photos will be brutal

How stupid can you be? The video was real. The hole in the window shows the bullet passed through the LOWER SASH of a double hung window. By your expert calculation, she must have been about three feet tall. The autopsy photos will likely show a shot to her gut, or possibly her leg.

You have stated:

At some point, people will not accept a cop saying "Oh, I saw a nigger and I was frightened so I shot her full of holes with no regard for anyone else in the house."

He shot her because she was black. Did you embarrass yourself enough? Nope.

You stated:

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 was not murdering black voters. And Officer Dean was murdering black voters? Officer Dean was engaged in voter suppression?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Godwin's Law

Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies) is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"; that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends. Promulgated by the American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990, Godwin's law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions. It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.

You also won an award re Godwin's Law for your reductio ad Hitlerum.

Godwin's Law

You stated:

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 [nc - misterwhite] and nolu would be groveling on your knees.

The other cop on the scene is going to testify against him.

The other cop was not in position to see anything but Jefferson's face. The other cop was senior and did not break protocol to announce her presence.

She can testify that she saw only Jefferson's face, she hear Officer Dean call out for Jefferson to show her hands, put her hands up, and she heard the report of Dean's gun when he shot, and that he discharged one, and only one, shot. And she can testify as to why, as the senior of the two, she did not announce her presence or knock on the door, and why she was engaged in surveillance of the house.

Misterwhite stated:

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

You replied to misterwhite:

It is not.

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

You stated:

Let's look at just one state's definition of assault and how it applied to a cop.

And you quoted an article that began:

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.

[snip]

misterwhite stated:

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?

I posted an authoritative law dictionary definition of assault, and requested you respond with a quote from your imaginary lawbook.

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.

You responded:

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.

Your non-answer did not provide any definition of assault or any Texas statute.

I responded to your non-answer with a quote from the applicable Texas statute:

You huff and puff, but you offer nothing to support your bullshit at #49 with more bullshit at #73, which descended lower at #74.

[Tooconservative #74] The police receive deference to their authority only if they identify themselves and present credentials. This is buttressed by making certain that the public can see their uniform as well as their badge.

As with #49 and #73, you pulled that out of your ass, not out of a lawbook or statute.

The Texas criminal statute on assault provides:

ASSAULT.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person:

[...]

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or

[...]

(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed against:

(1) a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant;

[...]

(d) For purposes of Subsection (b), the actor is presumed to have known the person assaulted was a public servant, a security officer, or emergency services personnel if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person's employment as a public servant or status as a security officer or emergency services personnel.

[...]

Have you no shame? You grossly misstated the law. You responded to Black's Law Dictionary by saying it was not Texas state law. You did not provide any quote of any law. In response to the Texas state law that was force fed to you, you have regurgitated and dribbled ever since.

You posted bullshit. You got caught. Deal with it.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-25   18:52:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Deckard (#13)

Peter R. Quinones is managing editor of the Libertarian Institute and hosts the Free Man Beyond the Wall podcast. He released his first book, Freedom Through Memedom – The 31-day Guide to Waking Up to Liberty in November 2017.

Those terms "libertarian" and "liberty" sure do scare you copsuckers.

Just the thought of a salesperson from NYC, when summoned as a legal expert, strikes fear in the hearts of men. Not as much as the usual summoning of a libertarian used car salesman, but fear nevertheless.

[From Amazon]

https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Through-Memedom-31-Day-Liberty/dp/1978400810/

Freedom Through Memedom: The 31-Day Guide to Waking Up to Liberty 1st Edition

by Mance Rayder (Author), Peter Raymond (Author), Scott Horton (Foreword)

Paperback: 96 pages
Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; 1 edition (November 19, 2017)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1978400810
ISBN-13: 978-1978400818

https://www.amazon.com/Dream-Factory-Peter-Quinones/dp/0595257216/

About the Author

Peter Quinones is a salesperson and speaker from New York City. Janice Malkotsis is a writer and editor from Long Island, New York.

When confronted by Texas statutes, I do not always choose outside counsel, but when I do, it is a salesperson from New York City, the most interesting source of law in the world. Not. Stay stupid my friend.

Whatever you aim your gun at, you are responsible for knowing what you are aiming at.

Unless you're a cop.

Officer Dean aimed at a person already aiming a gun at him. He perceived a deadly threat and, in one shot, eliminated the threat.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-25   18:55:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-25   18:57:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-25   18:59:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-25   19:01:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-25   19:03:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-25   19:04:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-25   19:07:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-25   19:09:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Deckard  posted on  2019-10-25   19:31:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: nolu chan (#47)

You meant to say Officer Dean did not break protocol and announce his presence.

Bingo.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-26   9:27:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-26   9:35:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-26   9:39:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-26   9:41:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-26   9:52:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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?

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-26   10:03:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-10-26   10:13:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-26   10:21:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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 Peters

Tags Big GovernmentMedia and Culture

Works Published inThe Free Market

Contact Eric Peters Twitter

Eric Peters is a freelance Anarcho-Libertarian writer, who uses cars and bikes as the vehicle for making the case for freedom and self-ownership. His books include Road Hogs (2011) and Automotive Atrocities (2004). He has written for The Washington Times, Detroit News and Free Press, Investors Business Daily, The American Spectator, National Review, The Chicago Tribune and Wall Street Journal.

https://www.thecarconnection.com/writer/10001034_eric-peters

Eric Peters, Editor

Eric Peters is a Washington, D.C.-based automotive writer and frequent contributor to the Detroit Free Press and Detroit News. He has written for the Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily and Washington Times, among others. In his free time, he enjoys working on old cars and currently owns a 1964 Chevy Corvair Monza coupe and 1976 Pontiac Trans-Am equipped with a modified 455 V-8.

Eric Peters Autos should not be mistaken for an auto dealership. Or a legal expert. Perhaps an expert at anarcho-libertarianism.

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.”

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-26   12:29:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

[...]

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-26   12:43:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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 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.

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-26   12:54:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#56)

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?

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-26   13:01:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-26   13:05:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Deckard  posted on  2019-10-26   13:37:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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 techniques
consistent 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 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.

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?

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-26   14:13:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Deckard  posted on  2019-10-26   14:28:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2019/10/13/questions-and-outrage-after-fort-worth-officer-fatally-shoots-28-year-old-woman-in-her-home/

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-26   14:43:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Deckard  posted on  2019-10-26   14:58:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-26   15:29:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Deckard  posted on  2019-10-26   17:06:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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 tactics

Posted 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 ICAT

Integrating 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.

Download the Report

Read the Full Study

[...]

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 Worth

Year 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.

- - - - - - - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-27   9:59:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-28   9:13:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-28   9:24:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

A Pole  posted on  2019-10-28   10:40:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Deckard  posted on  2019-10-28   11:07:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Deckard  posted on  2019-10-28   11:09:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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!

A Pole  posted on  2019-10-28   11:28:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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".

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-28   11:28:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-28   11:51:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-28   11:51:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-28   11:53:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: misterwhite (#78)

Then you don't get it. The message was ...

I cannot get it. I have those glasses on, you know.

A Pole  posted on  2019-10-28   12:10:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: All (#82)

The message was ...

I cannot get it. I have those glasses on, you know.

A Pole  posted on  2019-10-28   13:37:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com