Posted on 10/16/2019 3:07:46 AM PDT by Navy Patriot
A Texas woman was shot dead by a Fort Worth police officer in her home after she heard noises outside, picked up a handgun and pointed it at a window, the officer's arrest warrant showed on Tuesday.
Atatiana Jefferson, 28, was playing video games with her 8-year-old nephew around 2:30 am on Saturday when she heard sounds in her backyard, according to the warrant for former Fort Worth Police Officer Aaron Dean's arrest for alleged murder.
The noises were Dean, 34, and his partner moving around the back of her home, without announcing their presence, after they were sent to investigate why her front door was open.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
What happened was an example of the Castle Doctrine in action.
The woman was in her home. Hearing a noise and not knowing it was the police (the good guys), she reached for her gun for self-protection as most people would have done.
It appears the police did not identify themselves which led to this tragedy.
“Kid, if you don’t say your aunt was holding the gun we are going to charge you as an accessory”....well, it could happen that way.
Intentionally killing someone without lawful justification is by definition, both legally and morally, murder. Planning to do the same is capital murder.
The prosecution case has been made and the policeman has been duly convicted. If the facts presented so far are the whole story, I would say the conviction is probably correct. At some point, however, the defense case must be presented and that could alter the verdict. I don’t have any first hand information but am curious if anyone would change their guilty verdict if the following situation was proven at trial:
A two person team consisting of a very senior officer accompanied by a junior officer was dispatched for a welfare call. The junior officer remained near the patrol vehicle while the senior officer approached the front door, knocked and identified himself. Receiving no response, he instructed the junior officer to investigate the rear entrance while he remained at the front. It being dark in the back yard, the junior officer, using his flashlight, carefully made his way toward the back door, being alert for anything moving in the yard. Before arriving at the back door where he intended to knock and identify himself, he observed sudden movement at the window and a pistol being pointed at him. Following his instinct and self preservation training, he immediately fired at what he considered a deadly threat.
The above is only speculation. It is certainly possible, but quite unlikely, that the officer just wanted to kill someone and took advantage of this situation to satisfy his blood lust. We will not know until all evidence is presented. In the meantime, the police chief and city officials have a motivation to keep the city from being burned down and those who harbor hostility and suspicion of police will use the incident to reinforce those feelings. At this point, the officer is on his own and had better get a good lawyer and hope for a fair jury.
The idea that the mere presence of a gun, allows a police officer to be justified in a shooting, simply cannot coexist with a nation who’s citizens right to be armed is God given.
Your speculation is disproven by the officers’ released body camera video. Your scenario did NOT happen.
Under Texas law,perhaps not.But under Gay State Conservative's law it means a lot...if it's accurate.
Do you have the body camera video from the other officer?
Morality and legality are not always the same thing in this country.You may vigorously disagree but I firmly believe that there are many things in this country that are legal but immoral as well as things that are moral but illegal.I've never been a juror but if I were I would always take the moral path over the legal one in cases where the two paths were in conflict.
If this kid's account is accurate then IMO the moral path is to,very probably,convict him of negligent homicide despite the possibility that Texas law would require me to vote guilty of "murder".
It's clear that many here disagree...but I'm willing to be in the minority on this.
Murder is quite normally defined as the intentional and unlawful killing of another.
Not too much wiggle room in that.
An accident by definition is an planned series of events that lead to unwanted outcomes.
The officer did not accidentally shoot her, he clearly intended to so do. His sidearm did not fall off his belt and unintentionally discharge.
One crucial aspect of all justified shootings is that the actor be in a place he has a lawful right to be and that he is not the aggressor.
This one will test those factors quite rigorously. He will likely be convicted of murder, but in Texas, “sudden passion” may be applied to the sentencing. I doubt he will be found guilty of negligent homicide as he was not following police policy prior to the killing. A cop cannot assume a mantle of protection simply because he knows he is a cop, the awareness of the fact is crucial to anyone else in the situation.
As in the Jean-Guyger case, we shall see what a jury thinks is reasonable, unless he pleads and a judge is the finder of fact.
And your opinion regarding moral/legal has bearings on this case how?
Perhaps a review of the legal definitions in general are a wise move, espc. if you bear arms or drive etc.
Cops today don’t de-escalate. They make every situation as dangerous and tense as it can be. That’s how they get their jollies.
But cops have a higher responsibility when they are given the gun and badge.
**********
We don’t pay cops enough to demand that they risk sacrificing their lives in situations like this, to placate a hostile public that can turn on them before the evidence is even in. Suppose, hypothetically, that police are called for what is billed as a “welfare check” in a questionable neighborhood. Just to be safe, they send two of them, as they did here. When they arrive, they sense that something seems amiss. (Maybe the armchair cops on this thread would have felt completely at ease, but they weren’t there.) What seems to them to be a reasonable suspicion leads them to approach the house cautiously from the rear. (Contrary to what the armchair lawyers on this thread maintain, this does not make them tresspassers.) One of the cops then sees somebody in the house with a gun pointed at him. Can a reasonable jury find him guilty of murder just because he didn’t first yell out, “ Hey, don’t shoot — I’m really a cop”? If the deceased were really a thug, the cop could end-up dead.
the officers wee walking around the house with flashlights. I and anyone in their right mind would also have a gun pointed at them. The officers never identified themselves before opening fire. The subject officer had the quick reaction to turn his body com away from the action BEFORE he opened fire.
This lady was absolutely in the right , defending her life and property. The officers created this high risk situation and killed the lady as a result.
Not sure what you mean, but if you watch it in slow motion the cam catches the moment when she is shot and then she drops.
pointing a gun at any person trained in the use of firearms is not a good plan for the long term. She pointed a gun at the police officer not knowing who he was. He created the situation that got her killed.
You as an individual could not commit the same acts and claimed justification for killing someone. Try going to a neighbors home, sneak around the house with a flashlight at 2:30 am and then shoot the guy when he comes to the door. Or shoot a cop who comes to investigate. Your logic is flawed and may be a reflection of the community in which you live.(live Free of Die)
excellent story. Should be made into a movie. unfortunately it does not mesh with the know or stated facts in this case.
But it is a nice story. Should have included a meth lab in there somewhere.
2) As with any accident or other type of foul out investigation, there is a chain of events that lead up to the actual mishap, and usually many decisions made prior to the mishap where a better judgement prior to facing off with another person with a gun could have avoided the death in this case. This cop rolled up on a welfare check. Lets say he felt uncomfortable. Did he call or wait for more units to arrive as back up? Did he consider that the owner might be inside? Was catching a non-existent thief going out the back door more important than establishing that a theft occurred at all?
These are reasonable questions to ask of someone blessed by the state to carry and use lethal force, particularly the common sense question of knowing who is inside. If he was that unnerved about the situation, maybe they should have flashed the squad car lights and used the bull horn to alert anyone inside they were present.
Let play your hypothetical. If there was a thief inside, which is worse, letting him get away out the back, or shooting the owner? I hope you don't have to ponder this too hard.
Sorry, but poor judgement put this guy in a position where he felt he had to shoot a non-threat individual in their own home to "defend" himself, because he saw the person legally possessing a gun.
My mistake. Did he turn his camera away immediately after?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.