-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
White Fort Worth police officer shoots and kills 28-year-old black woman in her home
- Thread starter KVX
- Start date
TC McQuade
NES Member
Ex-Fort Worth officer indicted for murder of Atatiana Jefferson
A former Fort Worth police officer was indicted on a murder charge Friday in the October death of 28-year-old Atatiana Jefferson.
Aaron Dean, 34, was one of several officers who responded to Jefferson's home on Oct. 12 after police were called for a welfare check when a neighbor saw Jefferson's front door open in the middle of the night.
Dean hit Jefferson with a single shot that killed her. She was playing with her 8-year-old nephew at the time.
A former Fort Worth police officer was indicted on a murder charge Friday in the October death of 28-year-old Atatiana Jefferson.
Aaron Dean, 34, was one of several officers who responded to Jefferson's home on Oct. 12 after police were called for a welfare check when a neighbor saw Jefferson's front door open in the middle of the night.
Dean hit Jefferson with a single shot that killed her. She was playing with her 8-year-old nephew at the time.
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 2,183
- Likes
- 3,334
Cop is a local government employee. Judge and prosecutor are also employees of the same local government. Oh no there's no conflict of interest.
dcmdon
NES Member
She's in her own goddamned home with people outside shining lights in the window.
She's got a right to be walking around with a gun.
I don't know if she really pointed a gun out the window or not, but that's no reason to fire at her from a distance through the window. There is no imminent threat to the police outside.... it is dark and all they need to do is move out of the way if they're worried about getting shot. If the two people on opposite sides of the window don't line up with the window, no cop is getting shot. She'd have to go right up to the window, open it, pop out the screen, lean out and then try to shoot. I see no claim that happened. I'm sitting here now 5 feet from a window... the amount of outside I can see from this angle is just a few degrees, maybe 10 at most. It's faster to run to the side and not be in that 10 degree cone, maybe takes a second or two, than it is to draw gun, aim and try to get bullet through window at a person. Once safely to the side, there's time to think about the situation, announce what's going on "hey we're the police", etc.
POS cop.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2013
- Messages
- 1,686
- Likes
- 1,084
The city has insurance for this, the rates will be going up, as will everyones property taxes to pay the new rates. Property owners are the ones who take the punishment for bad cops.
I agree. Whether an imminent threat or no, life is full of imminent threats. The category of imminent threats that need shooting in life, whether for an on duty cop or a regular joe, is limited. The normal thing is to sidestep a threat rather than shoot it, especially if there is a chance that the threat is unintentional or based on a misunderstanding that can be resolved peacefully.
On a purely practical note, unless some particular CNS targets are destroyed (e.g. spine, brain stem), assailants can often fight for several tens of seconds despite a lethal injury, particularly when incapacitation is achieved through bleeding. Consequently, stepping off line to gain concealment is, in addition to being the wiser play in a scenario like that, also the one that gives you the best chance of making it home afterwards.
I saw the bodycam months ago, the incompetent cop didn't even give her time to show her hands before he pulled the trigger, he hadn't even finished his sentence before he fired. It's like, how can you claim she failed to obey an officer's order when the officer hadn't even finished the command? For all she knew before he said hands she probably thought he was some schizo sex offender going around shining lights in people's windows screaming "Show me your... tits!"
If the defense is going to be the officer couldn't verify that she wasn't holding a weapon in her hands because he couldn't see them, that's not a defense, this isn't a fugging NFL replay, this is life and death. When an officer fires his/her weapon, it has to be when circumstances exist that put the officer's life or an innocent bystander's life in immediate danger to the point that the only way to remove that immediate danger is lethal force.
How is someone looking out a window an immediate danger? How is not knowing whether someone does or doesn't have a weapon in their hand an immediate danger?
The answer is they're not a danger until they are a danger and not obeying an officer's command does not immediately make one a danger because let's say that the woman was Hispanic and didn't speak English. How is she supposed to know what the officer said and be able to comply without being immediately shot?
He is guilty of an unlawful killing, 10 to 20 years in state penitentiary.
If the defense is going to be the officer couldn't verify that she wasn't holding a weapon in her hands because he couldn't see them, that's not a defense, this isn't a fugging NFL replay, this is life and death. When an officer fires his/her weapon, it has to be when circumstances exist that put the officer's life or an innocent bystander's life in immediate danger to the point that the only way to remove that immediate danger is lethal force.
How is someone looking out a window an immediate danger? How is not knowing whether someone does or doesn't have a weapon in their hand an immediate danger?
The answer is they're not a danger until they are a danger and not obeying an officer's command does not immediately make one a danger because let's say that the woman was Hispanic and didn't speak English. How is she supposed to know what the officer said and be able to comply without being immediately shot?
He is guilty of an unlawful killing, 10 to 20 years in state penitentiary.
That's your opinion, the legal system has a different structure to it when it involves police responses to a person's home and it's a damn good thing she didn't have a gun in her hand because that would have basically cleared the cop of any wrongdoing and he'd still be on the force and who knows who else he would have killed as a result.
KBCraig
NES Member
Kop Skool 101: Anyone who isn't a cop is an immediate danger at all times.
*Anything*
Guilty of manslaughter, sentenced to 12 years.
www.keranews.org
Jury sentences Aaron Dean to nearly 12 years in prison for fatal shooting of Atatiana Jefferson
Dean was convicted of manslaughter for shooting and killing Atatiana Jefferson in her home in 2019. He was on duty as a police officer at the time.
www.keranews.org
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
She did have a gun in her hand.....she was in her own home........and the cop just got sentenced to 12 years without possibility of parole.
The cop was a nutcase that never should have been hired in the first place and the court proved it.
I'm shocked, usually grand juries acquit these cases in a pre-Floyd world, but I guess times are changing?Guilty of manslaughter, sentenced to 12 years.
Jury sentences Aaron Dean to nearly 12 years in prison for fatal shooting of Atatiana Jefferson
Dean was convicted of manslaughter for shooting and killing Atatiana Jefferson in her home in 2019. He was on duty as a police officer at the time.
I'm all for this new world where police have accountability and face consequences, and I hope to see more of it.
Palladin
NES Member
She did have a gun in her hand.....she was in her own home........and the cop just got sentenced to 12 years without possibility of parole.
The cop was a nutcase that never should have been hired in the first place and the court proved it.
He’s eligible for parole after 5 1/2 years I believe
I watched the trial, it’s a joke he was convicted, the evidence didn’t support a conviction on murder at all.
With respect to manslaughter, there was zero evidence presented at trial to support manslaughter. Manslaughter in this instance is basically a death resulting from reckless conduct without intent. A DUI death is an example. The person was reckless driving drunk and caused someones death even though the action was not intentional. He intended to shoot therefore manslaughter isn’t a thing. If he were rehoulstering his gun and it went off, that would be a manslaughter. He didn’t have an intent to shoot but his reckless conduct is what caused the death. That’s not what happened here, he intended to shoot, legally manslaughter can’t apply and there was ZERO evidence against this.
What is important is what the shooter was thinking at the time of the shot. I watched the trial over the past few weeks and it’s clear this was self defense. In the evidence, the cops were investigating an open structure burglary, policy is they do not announce their presence. The defendant and another cop were walking around the house investigating the open door and house which looked ransacked.
the dead woman saw the people outside her house and crouched by a window with a pistol affixed with a green laser. When the defendant walked by the window, he saw the dead woman with a gun raised at his. He yelled show me your hands and fired one shot killed her.
She had the right to defend her home (as long as she believed the people outside her house were there unlawfully). But the cop also has the right to self defense from a person pointing a gun at him. She obviously wasn’t a criminal and didn’t act criminally but neighs did he. Both parties can legally have the right to self defense.
The cops defense team was incompetent. The didn’t know self defense law, made many error of law and strategy and made the conviction possible. The facts were not there at all for a conviction, the trial was a political one (white cop, dead black woman). The prosecution was as corrupt as anything, their case was garbage, they made improper arguments to the jury and the defense lawyers were so stupid they almost never objected.
He has that right under Texas law if, and only if, the person pointing the gun at him is using unlawful force. She was not, in fact, using unlawful force, so the case therefore hinges on whether or not he reasonably believed that the force she was using was unlawful. At no point did he properly acknowledge and factor into his actions the undeniable possibility that no crime was in progress. No reasonable person would regard this as highly improbable, yet his actions belied the consideration.
Furthermore, he placed himself in a vulnerable position in front of that window and pointed his flashlight and gun into it, threatening anyone in the house and presenting himself in a position where a resident of the home could legally shoot him under Texas law. Even if we consider the same behavior in an alternate universe where there actually is a burglar, it was reckless to his own safety, since an actual burglar might have shot him in that instant without hesitation. The recklessness manifested not in his own harm, to which there would be some cosmic justice, but in hers.
I sure as hell don't want cops running around my backyard pointing guns into my home on the scant basis of an open door and messy floor, and you shouldn't, either. If they have probable cause to believe a crime is in progress, I expect a great deal more effort to preserve innocent life and to avoid a "friendly fire" incident with a lawful resident than this officer demonstrated.
KBCraig
NES Member
I'm just curious if you've actually read Texas Penal Code Chapter 19.
It doesn't require a lawyer or judge to explain it.
Not true. The unlawful force bs was discussed on brancas coverage of the trial. Also, he didn’t know who was point the gun at him, so in his mind it was unlawful. What matters is what the cop/shooter was thinking and that it was reasonable
His actions of being by the window etc are not reckless in the legal sense. This was a political prosecution like rittenhouse and he was wrongfully convicted
And the prosecution misstated the law over and over. The trial was a farce and no one should be on the side of the corrupt prosecution.
Last edited:
Murder can apply but not manslaughter. There was zero evidence in the trial to support a manslaughter conviction.
The child who the dead woman was babysitting said his aunt pointed the gun at the cop. The cop was legally at the house and thus legally allowed to defend himself against a deadly force threat
A lawyer has an opinion. Well that settles it, then.
But note that Branca agrees she would have a good SD case if instead she had shot him. All we need to do in order to find for him on SD is pretend that nothing he did meets the legal definition of recklessness. Sorry, but there is an argument to be made there.
Tex. Penal Code § 6.03 – Definitions of Culpable Mental States
A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct…
"A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint."
Yeah sure, in the 2 seconds before the shot he was out of options. What of it? When I saw the video, I couldn't believe he was standing right in front of the window, that far away from it, pointing a gun and a flashlight into it. What happened to slicing the pie? Windows don't count?
Maybe the prosecution was Rittenhouse-like. Sorry to hear it.
Similar threads
