Title: Cops Break Into Innocent Sleeping Woman’s Home, Shoot Her—Now She Faces Life in Prison Source:
From The Trenches/FTP URL Source:https://fromthetrenchesworldreport. ... he-faces-life-in-prison/258613 Published:Dec 11, 2019 Author:Matt Agorist Post Date:2019-12-12 02:25:02 by Deckard Keywords:None Views:17436 Comments:93
Winter Park, FL — Bobbie Sapp, 49, is a registered nurse, who has no criminal past. Despite never having committed a crime, because of the backward justice system in America, coupled with violent police welfare checks, Sapp is now facing the possibility of life behind bars.
On the night in question, Sapp had done nothing wrong, had committed no crime, and harmed no one—yet police broke into her home, raided her bedroom as she slept, and shot her. Then, they had the audacity to arrest her and charge her with multiple felonies.
Sapp’s nightmare began in September of 2017 as she slept comfortably in her own bed in her own home. Instead of waking up to her alarm that fateful morning, Sapp would wake up to multiple shadowy figures surrounding her in her bedroom, pulling off her covers, yelling at her, tasering her, and eventually, shooting her.
Sapp is so confident that she did nothing wrong that she went on camera recently with News 6 Orlando to tell her side of the story. It is nothing short of shocking. She says the entire incident began because her disgruntled ex-boyfriend used a police welfare check to deliberately harm her. It worked.
“He used this wellness check as a way to put me in harm’s way,” she said.
Indeed, instead of actually investigating the situation by knocking on the door, calling her, or any other number of non-violent means, cops helped this man — who did not live in the house and could have been anyone — break in to her home and then shoot this woman on his behalf.
“My girlfriend was threatening suicide last night, I just came to the house and trying to get in,” Sapp’s ex-boyfriend told the 911 operator.
Sapp says these were all lies. If she actually wanted to kill herself, she could’ve used one of the two guns which she regularly sleeps with. She did not.
“She is very well armed,” Sapp’s ex-boyfriend told the 911 operator when asked if Sapp had a gun.
“She’s threatened suicide by cop before,” he said.
There is no record of Sapp ever attempting to commit suicide by herself or by cop before. Also, if she was trying to commit suicide by cop that night — she would have had to call the cops. She did not call the police.
“I was asleep in my bed. I was not at all contemplating a suicide or suicide by cop,” Sapp told News 6.
Nevertheless, police show up to the home and start taking directions from Sapp’s ex, who did not live there.
“There’s one way into the house to crawl through a window and I don’t want to do that at this point. I want someone here with me,” Sapp’s ex-boyfriend said during the call.
When police arrived on scene, Sapp’s ex showed them how to break into the home and they followed his directions.
“I’m asking if there’s any weapons in the house, he tells me there’s enough weapons in the house to start a revolution,” officer Jeff Marcum, one of the responding officers, said according to an interview obtained by News 6.
Those weapons consisted of two pistols recovered from Sapp’s bed after she’d been shot.
Police claim that when they were breaking into Sapp’s home that they announced themselves as cops. However, when they got to Sapp’s bedroom, they admit that they did not announce themselves and she was still sleeping. She had no idea they were police.
“We’re yelling at her to, you know, let us see your hands, let us see your hands,” Marcum said.
Because the innocent woman who was just shaken out of sleep by heavily armed strangers in her bedroom, did not immediately begin to prostrate herself at the feet of her home invaders, force was escalated.
“I didn’t have my glasses on, I’m legally blind,” Sapp said. “I couldn’t identify anybody, but I remember there being shadows figures standing in my room. They pulled the covers off me.”
“At that point when she pulled the cover, Ms. Sapp immediately came up with a handgun and pointed it right at us,” Marcum told investigators.
Sapp disputes the notion that she ever pointed a gun. She says that had she actually pointed a gun, she would be dead because more than one of the cops would’ve fired their guns.
“If I had been pointing my gun, the way they said that I was, why didn’t they all shoot me, instead of just one person?” Sapp asked. Indeed, as TFTP has reported on a regular basis, cops are more than willing to shoot someone for merely reaching for areas where there may be a gun. If you actually point a gun at a cop, especially four of them, rest assured, you are going to be filled with holes immediately.
Instead of shooting her, one cop deployed his taser. Marcum, apparently scared of his own shadow then did what the other officers in the room never felt necessary: he pulled out his gun and put a bullet into Sapp.
This innocent woman, who had harmed no one, was asleep in her own bedroom, and did nothing wrong, was then shot in the shoulder and arrested.
“It doesn’t make any sense that they would come in that way unless they were lied to by somebody that was using this well-being check as a tool to put me in harm’s way,” Sapp said. “To process that has been really, really difficult. It’s something that could happen to anyone.”
Despite the fact that not a single cop was injured, and the fact that Sapp never fired of a round, and the fact that she was the one who was shot, this woman was arrested and charged with the following felonies:
Att. First Degree Murder Of Leo W/firearm Att. First Degree Murder Of Leo W/firearm Agg. Assault On A Leo (w/ A Deadly Weapon) Aggravated Assault With A Deadly Weapon Aggravated Assault With A Deadly Weapon Aggravated Assault With A Deadly Weapon Resisting Officer With Violence
Sapp, whose trial begins this month, now faces the possibility of life behind bars for attempting to defend herself against multiple armed home invaders who happened to wear badges. All of this, of course, was carried out for her own safety.
I would not expect you to be aware of this, but when someone is awakened from sleep by intruders in his/her home shining flashlights in the face in a room that is otherwise dark, taking note of the apparrel of the intruders, assuming it can be seen at all, is not the strongest informational element to register in the brain of the just awakened person, particularly if that person is legally blind. That no doubt involved difficult concepts to grasp, but if you spend some time mulling over it and discussing it with friends, your father and your pastor, you should eventually understand the reasoning.
It is possible that these police wear glow-in-the-dark uniforms, in which case, I'll stand corrected.
I suggest you try this on yourself by having a friend make a similar call on your home at a random time sometime within the next 3 months. Be sure also to have a stalker put you in serious fear for your life beforehand and have 2 pistols -- apparently sufficient to start a revolution -- on hand. Let us know how you do.
Seems to me this prosecution may be intended to preempt a civil lawsuit from this woman. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this case is dropped just before trial, when they realize she will not take a plea.
I would not expect you to be aware of this, but when someone is awakened from sleep by intruders in his/her home shining flashlights in the face in a room that is otherwise dark,
Sunrise in Winter Park, Florida in September, 2017 was 7:10 am. The police entered at 8:00.
The incident didn't happen outside. Because it is light outside doesn't say how much light was on the inside.
Officers responded at 8:27 a.m. Sapp did not say it was dark. Agorist wrote, "On the night in question...." It was the day in question, and the light in the room is not clearly established.
The information in the article relates that it was light enough for a legally blind person to make out shadowy figures standing in the room.
“I didn’t have my glasses on, I’m legally blind,” Sapp said. “I couldn’t identify anybody, but I remember there being shadows figures standing in my room. They pulled the covers off me.”
“At that point when she pulled the cover, Ms. Sapp immediately came up with a handgun and pointed it right at us,” Marcum told investigators.
- - - - - - - - - -
Sapp disputes the notion that she ever pointed a gun. She says that had she actually pointed a gun, she would be dead because more than one of the cops would’ve fired their guns.
One shot to the right shoulder and she was not pointing a gun.
She is allegedly legally blind. She was allegedly brandishing a gun and could not see what she was aiming it at. That can get a legally blind person in trouble should he or she go into the woods unaccompanied to hunt. In general, blind people are required to be accompanied; to have a non-hunting partner as a seeing guide.
Blind people may be licensed to own guns, but they are not relieved of the responsibility of knowing what they are aiming at. She was aiming at cops in uniform, with badges, perhaps unaware of their being cops due her poor vision. Her poor vision would be an explanation, perhaps a mitigating factor, but not an excuse.
A jury can decide whether she was justified in aiming a gun in self-defense, where her poor vision prevented her from knowing what she was aiming at.
Another question would be, if she were justified in aiming her gun at unidentified shadows in her room, were the shadowy cops justified in shooting her in the shoulder? A finding that she was justified would not establish that the cops were not justified.
Another factor to consider is that the officers were almost certainly shouting some form of command, and there is no evidence that Sapp is deaf.
Blind people may be licensed to own guns, but they are not relieved of the responsibility of knowing what they are aiming at. She was aiming at cops in uniform, with badges, perhaps unaware of their being cops due her poor vision. Her poor vision would be an explanation, perhaps a mitigating factor, but not an excuse.
Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all based purely on their perception of danger. To be consistent in applying laws equally to all, civilians must be afforded the same legal consideration. There is little question that this woman had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense when she was awakened by 3 men in her bedroom.
Another question would be, if she were justified in aiming her gun at unidentified shadows in her room, were the shadowy cops justified in shooting her in the shoulder? A finding that she was justified would not establish that the cops were not justified.
That's not a question in this case as the cops are not on trial. But certainly standing precedent will state that the police shooting her was justified. If she is found not guilty of any crime related to the shooting, this question may come up in a civil court context should she decide to sue the police.
A shooting takes place where no threat existed does not necessarily require that a finding of criminal guilt occurred on the party that fired the shot, even if it results in injury or death. This is most often the case when cops shoot civilians but has occurred in extremely rare cases, at least one where a civilian shot and killed a cop during a home raid. It was deemed justified as the homeowner had no reasonable basis for knowing that police were invading his home.
Being awakened from sleep in one's own home by police would seem to be a qualifying case of this woman having no reasonable basis for knowing police were present.
Another factor to consider is that the officers were almost certainly shouting some form of command, and there is no evidence that Sapp is deaf.
Shouting commands wouldn't necessarily include identifying themselves, and again, doing so to a person who is in the process of awakening and who is legally blind creates an extremely dubious certainty in the person who was just awakened, particularly when that person is a woman living alone, awakened by 3 men whom she she does not know and who entered her home uninvited and without her knowledge.
By any fair standard, she had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense that is routinely afforded police. Failing to afford that standard in this case is a clear violation of failure to apply that law equally to all persons.
Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all....
Are you seriously arguing that Bobbie Sapp aiming a firearm at the police “posed no threat at all”?
There is little question that this woman had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense when she was awakened by 3 men in her bedroom.
Then she can plead self-defense. A problem may be that she failed to respond to verbal commands.
Another question would be, if she were justified in aiming her gun at unidentified shadows in her room, were the shadowy cops justified in shooting her in the shoulder? A finding that she was justified would not establish that the cops were not justified.
That's not a question in this case as the cops are not on trial. But certainly standing precedent will state that the police shooting her was justified. If she is found not guilty of any crime related to the shooting, this question may come up in a civil court context should she decide to sue the police.
It is a question of whether or not charges are filed against the police. The police had a gun aimed at them. One of them shot the subject in the shoulder and removed the threat. The responding officers are not responsible for the content of the report to which they responded. If the caller reported false information, he could be liable for a felony. Had she died, he could have been liable for felony murder.
She cannot sue the police, or the police department. She can try to sue Winter Haven, or her ex who called in the report, and showed the cops how to effect entry.
Being awakened from sleep in one's own home by police would seem to be a qualifying case of this woman having no reasonable basis for knowing police were present.
Up to the point where they scream their commands and make it known that they are cops.
Shouting commands wouldn't necessarily include identifying themselves....
Winter Park police Sgt. Garvin McComey said officers tried to talk with the woman, who started pointing a gun at one officer. Officers tried to subdue the woman with a Taser, but she continued to point the weapon, police said.
The officer shot her in the right shoulder after she did not respond to several commands to put the gun down, he said.
- - - - - - - - - -
A shooting takes place where no threat existed....
The cops reported to a scene of a subject who allegedly threatened suicide by cop.
The subject pulled a gun and aimed it at the cops.
You hypothetical has no basis.
By any fair standard, she had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense....
A court can decide that. Self-defense is an available defense, not a get out of jail free card. She must justify aiming a gun at uniformed cops whom she was unable to identify due to her impaired vision. She must justify not putting on her glasses in order to identify her targets before aiming a gun at them.
Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all....
Are you seriously arguing that Bobbie Sapp aiming a firearm at the police “posed no threat at all”?
You have clearly, knowingly and intentionally taken my comment out of context.
There is little question that this woman had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense when she was awakened by 3 men in her bedroom.
Then she can plead self-defense. A problem may be that she failed to respond to verbal commands.
Her first defense is that she never aimed a gun at them at all. The claim by police that she did is in dispute. But assuming she did, I believe she does have a legitimate self defense claim.
Being awakened from sleep in one's own home by police would seem to be a qualifying case of this woman having no reasonable basis for knowing police were present.
Up to the point where they scream their commands and make it known that they are cops.
So she is obligated to accept the word of strange men in her bedroom that they are cops. Men she cannot she clearly? This is not about who they were, but whether her armed reaction, if it was indeed an armed reaction, was reasonable given her state of mind being freshly awakened and what facts she could be certain of in this state of mind, facts that go beyond who these men were claiming to be.
By any fair standard, she had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense....
A court can decide that. Self-defense is an available defense, not a get out of jail free card. She must justify aiming a gun at uniformed cops whom she was unable to identify due to her impaired vision. She must justify not putting on her glasses in order to identify her targets before aiming a gun at them.
As though in an in-home invasion in her bedroom by those with criminal intent, she is legally obligated to put on her glasses before taking defensive measures *just in case* the men in her bedroom are cops...
Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all....
Are you seriously arguing that Bobbie Sapp aiming a firearm at the police “posed no threat at all”?
You have clearly, knowingly and intentionally taken my comment out of context.
No, you started your comments with inapplicable blather. I pointed out the inappropriateness of your deliberately skewed context. The instant case does not concern a case where the subject posed no threat at all.
Her first defense is that she never aimed a gun at them at all. The claim by police that she did is in dispute.
Three cops against one lady with two guns in her bed. The defense that the cops shot her for no reason at all will be as persuasive as the dindu defense.
But assuming she did, I believe she does have a legitimate self defense claim.
The judicial branch can sort that out with a full set of facts to judge on.
As though in an in-home invasion in her bedroom by those with criminal intent, she is legally obligated to put on her glasses before taking defensive measures *just in case* the men in her bedroom are cops...
She will be required to justify why she picked up a gun and aimed it at uniformed cops whom she could not identify as such because she is legally blind. Being blind and unable to see and identify one’s intended target does not make it lawful to aim a gun and what one cannot clearly see or identify.
I will wait for the trial and accept whatever they find.
As though in an in-home invasion in her bedroom by those with criminal intent....
Here you go again. That is pure, absolute bullshit. There is no evidence whatever that the responding officers invaded anything, nor that they had any criminal intent. To the contrary, there is evidence that they responded appropriately to the report that they were given.
Are you seriously arguing that Bobbie Sapp aiming a firearm at the police “posed no threat at all”?
You have clearly, knowingly and intentionally taken my comment out of context.
No, you started your comments with inapplicable blather. I pointed out the inappropriateness of your deliberately skewed context. The instant case does not concern a case where the subject posed no threat at all.
Try reading my full statement. I was comparing the "fear for my life" defense routinely invoked by police for when they shoot people even when no threat exists, with this case where a woman is accused of acting proactively to defend her person. My point, which you are negligently refusing to acknowledge, is that this "fear for my life" defense is not one that can lawfully be available ONLY to police, and that this fear is already well established to mean what the person in fear was knowledgable of, which may differ from the actual facts at the time.
A cop shooting a man getting out of his car because he held his wallet with both hands was deemed justified because of the fear the cop felt regardless of the fact that there was zero danger. The facts on the scene don't matter. What is in the mind of the person with the gun does matter.
Now perhaps you yourself just got out of bed and were not fully cognizant of my entire comment: It follows:
Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all based purely on their perception of danger. To be consistent in applying laws equally to all, civilians must be afforded the same legal consideration. There is little question that this woman had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense when she was awakened by 3 men in her bedroom.
....
She will be required to justify why she picked up a gun and aimed it at uniformed cops whom she could not identify as such because she is legally blind. Being blind and unable to see and identify one’s intended target does not make it lawful to aim a gun and what one cannot clearly see or identify.
Being in her own bedroom, in her own house, awakened by 3 male strangers that were uninvited sure sounds like a fully justified and legitimate "fear for my life" defense to me, and taking aim at them, as best she could until such time as she is satisfied that no danger exists, sure sounds like a legitimate defense to me.
As though in an in-home invasion in her bedroom by those with criminal intent....
Here you go again. That is pure, absolute bullshit. There is no evidence whatever that the responding officers invaded anything, nor that they had any criminal intent. To the contrary, there is evidence that they responded appropriately to the report that they were given.
You again miss my point, negligently or willingly. My point was: What if this woman WAS being invaded by someone with criminal intent, like her ex-boyfriend? Your stated position is that if instead of cops these 3 men were thugs there to rape and murder her, she would be legally prohibited from aiming her gun at them until after she puts her glasses on.
Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all based purely on their perception of danger.
Your false predicate is still false.
Let me help a brother out:
Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all based purely on their reasonable perception of danger.
What if this woman WAS being invaded by someone with criminal intent, like her ex-boyfriend?
I could have been Attila the Hun, and two of his henchmen. You support the right of a blind woman to pick up a gun and aim it at an unidentified target because she cannot see well enough to identify cops in full uniform.
The right to defend oneself does not grant the right to break the law in so doing. Recall the Arkansas lady, barred from possessing a gun because of a prior, picking up a gun in justified self-defense. She was busted for unlawful possession of a firearm.
She is going to have to defend that she picked up a gun and aimed it at an unidentified person who was a cop in full uniform. If a fully sighted person couldn’t do it, what provision in law permits a blind person to do it?
When she aimed her gun at the cop, the cop was certainly justified in perceiving a deadly threat, and fully justified in shooting her.
She had no way of knowing if she faced a deadly threat or not. In picking up the gun, she faced a deadly threat of her own making. She could reasonably fear the unknown, but she is going to have to sell to a jury that she had a right to aim her gun at the unknown.
She can always hope for an anarcho-libertarian judge and jury.
That is a death sentence.
A blind woman challenging three armed cops to a gunfight is as close as she is going to get to a death sentence. Especially if she has been reported to have been threatening to commit suicide by cop.
It looks like this is just a game to you. You've got nothing better to do with your life than to bait people into arguments that you have no intention of honestly engaging.
It looks like this is just a game to you. You've got nothing better to do with your life than to bait people into arguments that you have no intention of honestly engaging.
Anthem posted on 2019-12-18 3:54:23 ET
#67. To: Anthem (#59)
Oh heck, just leave, rehandle yet again and come back as juvenile dumbshit.
nolu chan posted on 2019-12-18 18:12:36 ET
I'll leave it to others to decide whose post is that of a juvenile dumbshit.
I'll leave it to others to decide whose post is that of a juvenile dumbshit.
Yes, it a tough choice to make between your bllshit pulled out of your ass, and the actual law, as quoted in a relevant court opinion. You can continue to act like a dumbshit and remove all doubt.
Anthem #58: “Are we loosing track of the fact that these guys invaded her house, with no probable cause....”
Police officers responding to a report of an armed woman contemplating suicide by cop, who reasonably believe someone is inside who needs help, are not invaders, and according to the law, they need neither a warrant, court order, nor probable cause of a crime, to enter a residence. Whether there is an actual emergency is immaterial. People are free to believe you or the lying laws and courts.
It can explain the law to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
JOHNATHAN EASTES, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
JULY TERM 2007 Case No. 5D06-3583 ________________/
Opinion filed July 13, 2007 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, George W. Maxwell III , Judge.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and David S. Morgan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
EVANDER, J.
[...]
On appeal, Eastes first argues that the trial court erred in failing to exclude any evidence obtained subsequent to Officer Wical's warrantless entry into his apartment. Although it is unclear as to what evidence Eastes requested to be suppressed, we will address the legality of Officer Wical's entry into the apartment. The Fourth Amendment does not bar a police officer from making a warrantless entry into a residence when the officer reasonably believes that a person within is in need of immediate aid. See Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978); Riggs v. State, 918 So. 2d 274, 279 (Fla. 2005).
Our decisions therefore confirm that authorities may enter a private dwelling based on a reasonable fear of a medical emergency. In those limited circumstances, the sanctity of human life becomes more important than the sanctity of the home.
Riggs, 918 So. 2d at 281. Furthermore, it is immaterial whether an actual emergency existed. The test is whether the officer reasonably believed an emergency existed at the time of the warrantless entry.Seibert v. State, 923 So. 2d 460, 468 (Fla.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 198 (2006). The officer's search must be "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation." Mincey, 437 U.S. at 393. Thus, an officer must cease a search once it is determined that no emergency exists. Seibert, 923 So. 2d at 468.
In the present case, Officer Wical had a reasonable basis to believe that a medical emergency existed at the time he entered Eastes' apartment. The officers were responding to a "disturbance, possible suicidal person" call. Eastes had blood on both arms from his forearms to his fingers. There was broken glass on his apartment floor and his furniture was in disarray. Eastes made no attempt to dispel Wical's concerns for his (Eastes') safety at any time prior to Wical's entry into the apartment.
The concerns that justified Officer Wical's entry into the apartment were not alleviated prior to Eastes' battery of Officer Ashouri. After entering Eastes' apartment, Wical observed Eastes' arms were still bleeding and there was blood on the microwave door, on a table, and on the floor. Additionally, Eastes continued to refuse to provide any information to Wical, which might alleviate Wical's belief that Eastes was a threat to harm himself. The evidence amply supports the trial court's conclusion that Officer Wical had legally entered Eastes' apartment.
