White Fort Worth police officer shoots and kills 28-year-old black woman in her home

[Hoover]

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…

texas.public.law

"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.

They each had seif defense rights, if she shot him it would be the same thing. It’s a bad situation but legally there was no crime.

 

[Bonesinium]

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.

This is scary and a good insight to why killer criminal cops go free. People like this exist.

A cop can violate all sorts of policy leading to them then killing an innocent person in their own home, and morons like this think it’s justified self defense. Scary.

I watched much of the trial too. The evidence was quite clear he both violated policy repeatedly, making so many mistakes, that lead him into believing in something that wasn’t even close to the reality of the situation. He then killed someone. That’s not to mention the fact he failed the psych exam and should never have even been hired. Supervisors didn’t think he was competent. And more!

Here’s a quick overview of some of this for those that didn’t watch the trial.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eknzCQk8vK4

They each had seif defense rights, if she shot him it would be the same thing. It’s a bad situation but legally there was no crime.

Legally he committed manslaughter. And I’m glad he was convicted. It’s past time criminals don’t get to hide behind the badge to get away with killing people.

 

[Hoover]

This is scary and a good insight to why killer criminal cops go free. People like this exist.

A cop can violate all sorts of policy leading to them then killing an innocent person in their own home, and morons like this think it’s justified self defense. Scary.

I watched much of the trial too. The evidence was quite clear he both violated policy repeatedly, making so many mistakes, that lead him into believing in something that wasn’t even close to the reality of the situation. He then killed someone. That’s not to mention the fact he failed the psych exam and should never have even been hired. Supervisors didn’t think he was competent. And more!

Here’s a quick overview of some of this for those that didn’t watch the trial.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eknzCQk8vK4




Legally he committed manslaughter. And I’m glad he was convicted. It’s past time criminals don’t get to hide behind the badge to get away with killing people.

Policy is not law and is pretty irrelevant. Violating a policy gets you fired, not convicted.

The prosecution had to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt which they absolutely did not do. Each person had a right to self defense and this case is a terrible example of the state damaging self defense rights. Who cares about the gu6. Ring a cop, the prosecution will use the same BS against anyone who claims self defense. Cheering is prosecution win here is cheering for the government and against self defense.

If one disbelieves self defense, murder would apply. With the facts of this case, manslaughter cannot apply legally. Dean intended to shoot her, there was no evidence of recklessness which would be required for manslaughter.

Yes, It’s scary people support the prosecution. In this case they were every bit as corrupt as in the Rittenhouse trial.

 

[meh]

If one disbelieves self defense, murder would apply. With the facts of this case, manslaughter cannot apply legally. Dean intended to shoot her, there was no evidence of recklessness which would be required for manslaughter.

The bodycam was presented at trial. Can you cite some case law that limits our interpretation of the Texas legal definition of "recklessness" that definitively precludes judging his behavior that set up this no-win scenario as criminally reckless?

 

[Hoover]

The bodycam was presented at trial. Can you cite some case law that limits our interpretation of the Texas legal definition of "recklessness" that definitively precludes judging his behavior that set up this no-win scenario as criminally reckless?

All the BS about his not following policy, guarding all exits, etc is irrelevant. What matters is what was happening and deans perception of deadly force facing him at the time he shot. The prosecution talking about how the cops walked across the street etc is completely irrelevant. The only way this is manslaughter is if he were fumbling with his light and accidentally shot, reholstering and shot, etc.

When a person is legally at a location and is placed in fear of death or great bodily harm, they have the right to self defense. If the woman shot the cop, Dean, that would have been a justified shooting by means of self defense. Legally each had the right to shoot in this situation, neither was the bad person without the legal right to self defense. It’s a bad situation because the dead person wasn’t a criminal or acting criminally. This case was a very bad case for anyone who supports self defense. Dean being a cop is irrelevant


If you didn’t watch the trial, the defense lawyers were atrocious. Their trial actions were terrible and Dean was extremely poorly prepared for testimony. Without question the best witness for the prosecution was Dean himself. If Dean were prepped then he obviously would have shown he was a terrible witness in the prep sessions and the defense should have never called him. The prosecutions witnesses were pointless and did nothing to disprove self defense. Zimmerman had excellent defense lawyers in Florida, Richards for rittenhouse was solid, the other was excellent. These lawyers in this case were incompetent. A law school student would have put on a much better defense.

 

[meh]

What matters is what was happening and deans perception of deadly force facing him at the time he shot. The prosecution talking about how the cops walked across the street etc is completely irrelevant. The only way this is manslaughter is if he were fumbling with his light and accidentally shot, reholstering and shot, etc.

Let's consider, instead, an example of manslaughter that does not involve self defense. Suppose two friends are hanging out, and one of them is practicing tricks with a loaded gun, e.g. spinning it or whatnot. The gun goes off accidentally and kills the other friend. Both were there legally. SD is not a factor. Neither was doing anything illegal, but a reasonable person would recognize the danger inherent to practicing tricks with a loaded gun, and he disregarded that danger. That's Manslaughter in Texas. The culpability is for causing the death, not for the shooting per se.

Another example may help tease apart the difference between immediate and actual causes better. Suppose somebody acted recklessly somehow. Exactly how isn't relevant, but in doing so they unintentionally tackle an innocent person at an overlook, and both are toppled off. The reckless man has hold of a rail. The person who was previously minding their own business is only hanging on to the reckless man's belt. No one else is around. The reckless man is about to lose his grip because he can't support both their weights. To save himself, the reckless man would be justified in freeing himself of the other person. So it's all cool, just an accident or something? No. He's still guilty of Manslaughter because tackling was he actual cause of the death. Freeing himself, which was justified, was only the immediate cause. A Manslaughter theory of the case is that the actual cause was the officer's conduct, while the immediate cause was the shooting. Arguing that the immediate cause is justified doesn't rule out a Manslaughter conviction.

 

[Hoover]

Let's consider, instead, an example of manslaughter that does not involve self defense. Suppose two friends are hanging out, and one of them is practicing tricks with a loaded gun, e.g. spinning it or whatnot. The gun goes off accidentally and kills the other friend. Both were there legally. SD is not a factor. Neither was doing anything illegal, but a reasonable person would recognize the danger inherent to practicing tricks with a loaded gun, and he disregarded that danger. That's Manslaughter in Texas. The culpability is for causing the death, not for the shooting per se.

Another example may help tease apart the difference between immediate and actual causes better. Suppose somebody acted recklessly somehow. Exactly how isn't relevant, but in doing so they unintentionally tackle an innocent person at an overlook, and both are toppled off. The reckless man has hold of a rail. The person who was previously minding their own business is only hanging on to the reckless man's belt. No one else is around. The reckless man is about to lose his grip because he can't support both their weights. To save himself, the reckless man would be justified in freeing himself of the other person. So it's all cool, just an accident or something? No. He's still guilty of Manslaughter because tackling was he actual cause of the death. Freeing himself, which was justified, was only the immediate cause. A Manslaughter theory of the case is that the actual cause was the officer's conduct, while the immediate cause was the shooting. Arguing that the immediate cause is justified doesn't rule out a Manslaughter conviction.

The examples you give are manslaughter. In the Dallas case, say he was walking with his gun out and finger on the trigger and trips. A round is fired, goes through the window, wall, whatever and kill’s someone (maybe his partner), that’s manslaughter. My example is exactly what Paul Duncan did in Framingham on a SWAT raid the the Framingham police. He killed Eurie stamps and the DA refused to charge him .

Is the woman in Texas had shot the cop because she reasonably viewed him as a burglar (obviously she wouldn’t have seen the uniform and badge) and he pointed the gun towards her and she shot. She’d be not guilty by reason of self defense. What the prosecution harped on non stop, he did follow FWPD policy on this or that. Why didn’t he call for back up, etc is all irrelevant and essentially an attempt (successful because deans lawyers were idiots) to make failing to follow policy a path to guilt. Policy says an open structure call like this is a suspected burglary and the cops shouldn’t announce their presence. To me that’s stupid but that’s their policy.

Prosecutors do this crap non stop. If a person in a self defense had a 357 magnum, the prosecution would say he wanted to be Dirty Harry. If he had a 9mm glock 19 with 15 round mags, the prosecution would say they wanted to kill as many people as possible. No matter what you do, the prosecution would say that was the wrong thing. Honestly the more I watch these types of cases, the more I hate prosecutors. The govt who tramps rights and runs over the innocent are MUCH MUCH more likely to be prosecutors than police.

If you look at Zimmerman, the cops didn’t think Zimmerman committed a crime, in Rittenhouse, only the detectives were after rittenhouse. In th George Floyd stuff, chauvin obviously didn’t conduct himself well but the govt/prosecution railroaded the 3 others, who had little to nothing to do with that event. One of the cops gave Floyd CPR and was only a cop for a few days or weeks yet he’s doing years in prison now.

Look at the January 6th stuff. The people who assaulted cops should be in prison but the prosecutors there put people in jail for non violently walking through the capital holding signs and chanting. The same type of prosecutors as those handled this case in Texas. It was a farce.

 

[Hoover]

This is scary and a good insight to why killer criminal cops go free. People like this exist.

A cop can violate all sorts of policy leading to them then killing an innocent person in their own home, and morons like this think it’s justified self defense. Scary.

I watched much of the trial too. The evidence was quite clear he both violated policy repeatedly, making so many mistakes, that lead him into believing in something that wasn’t even close to the reality of the situation. He then killed someone. That’s not to mention the fact he failed the psych exam and should never have even been hired. Supervisors didn’t think he was competent. And more!

Here’s a quick overview of some of this for those that didn’t watch the trial.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eknzCQk8vK4




Legally he committed manslaughter. And I’m glad he was convicted. It’s past time criminals don’t get to hide behind the badge to get away with killing people.

Great video lol. The video is very biased and purposely misconstrues facts. Yes one psychologist gave Dean negative ratings, 3 others said he was fine, the video leaves that out. The video says Dean never announced himself and “creeped” around the house. FWPD policy for an open structure call is no to announce themselves and to investigate without exposing their presence.

That video is like biden citing The NY Times as proof of something

 

[dcmdon]

What is important is what the shooter was thinking at the time of the shot.

You are absolutely wrong. The legal standard is what a REASONABLE PERSON would be thinking.

A reasonable person would have rung the doorbell and announced POLICE.

She would have stopped playing video games, gone to the door and the night would have ended without incident.

You don't go prowling around someone's back yard at nigh LIKE A CRIMINAL and then act surprised when the homeowner responds to you like you are a burglar.

 

[Hoover]

You are absolutely wrong. The legal standard is what a REASONABLE PERSON would be thinking.

A reasonable person would have knocked on the door or rung the doorbell, announced POLICE.

She would have stopped playing video games, gone to the door and the night would have ended without incident.

You don't go prowling around someone's back yard at nigh LIKE A CRIMINAL and then act surprised when the homeowner responds to you like you are a burglar.

You obviously didn’t watch the trial. The call the cop received was an open structure call which the FT worth PD treats as a suspected burglary and their policy is to not announce their presence. They are to conduct a cursory search of the area. The cop and his partner followed the department policy. I think the policy is dumb but that’s what his training was and what that PD wants done.

The element of self defense is also reasonableness, not what a reasonable person would do.

The cop and the woman each would have been justified in shooting the other person.

 

[dcmdon]

None of that changes the fact that your statement that, what the shooter was thinking, was what was important.

The facts relating to the trial make his thinking more reasonable. Which changes things.

But the legal standard is what a reasonable person would be thinking.

It further illustrates the fact that poor training makes dangerous cops. We agree it was a bad policy.
Is walking around someone's backyard looking into windows a cursory search?

 

[KBCraig]

You obviously didn’t watch the trial. The call the cop received was an open structure call which the FT worth PD treats as a suspected burglary and their policy is to not announce their presence. They are to conduct a cursory search of the area. The cop and his partner followed the department policy. I think the policy is dumb but that’s what his training was and what that PD wants done.

The element of self defense is also reasonableness, not what a reasonable person would do.

The cop and the woman each would have been justified in shooting the other person.

No. Under Texas law, no one was justified to shoot under those circumstances, the cop least of all.

 

[Hoover]

No. Under Texas law, no one was justified to shoot under those circumstances, the cop least of all.

If he thought she was a burglar pointing a gun at him, she thought the same, they each are privileged to use deadly force in that situation.

 

[dcmdon]

If he thought she was a burglar pointing a gun at him, she thought the same, they each are privileged to use deadly force in that situation.

Yes. Except he shouldn't have been there.

She had every right to be where she was.

 

[meh]

Yes. Except he shouldn't have been there.

He actually did have a legal right to be where he was as well. Some would have us accept this as an immutable fact of life that a cop can get called for whatever reason and based on the slightest suspicion that a crime might be in progress play peakaboo in front of your backyard-facing bedroom windows pointing his pistol and light into the window from a few feet away at just anybody who might be inside the house. But the best interests of the cops and homeowner are in perfect harmony: the cop shouldn't want to put themselves at risk by just standing like a dumbass in full view just a few feet in front of a bedroom window, and the homeowner should want the cop to be sufficiently removed that both he and the cop have a chance to challenge each other to figure out what the hell is going on before they are both obliged to shoot each other in self defense.

 

[Hoover]

Yes. Except he shouldn't have been there.

She had every right to be where she was.

He was answering a call, he had the legal right to be there. You really don’t understand any of the facts of this case. Go watch the trial.

 

[Rat187]

Great video lol. The video is very biased and purposely misconstrues facts. Yes one psychologist gave Dean negative ratings, 3 others said he was fine, the video leaves that out. The video says Dean never announced himself and “creeped” around the house. FWPD policy for an open structure call is no to announce themselves and to investigate without exposing their presence.

That video is like biden citing The NY Times as proof of something

Do you know anything about the Fort Worth Police Department?. Since when is it illegal to have your front door open? That department is corrupt as hell. Efff U.

 

[meh]

Since when is it illegal to have your front door open?

An undumb question would be "Since when is an open front door sufficient to support a reasonable suspicion that a burglary in progress?" That was their assumption, not that there was anything illegal about the door being open.. Not being a burglar, I don't know their habits, but I'm thinking burglars probably don't leave the front door open because it would attract attention. Consequently, if the front door is open, even if the house looks ransacked (which I don't think it did based on what the officer could see from outside), is it reasonable to suspect that the burglary is still in progress? I think not. Rather, it's all but certain that if there has been a burglary or home invasion, it's over now, and anyone you see is more likely to be a lawful resident than a burglar. Or worse, it's not a burglary scene but rather the aftermath of a home invasion with residents and/or home invader incapacitated and in need of medical attention.

 

[Hoover]

Do you know anything about the Fort Worth Police Department?. Since when is it illegal to have your front door open? That department is corrupt as hell. Efff U.

A neighbor called and said the door was open at 2 am. The dispatcher relayed the info to the cops as an open structure which FWPD responds to as a possible burglary. The two cops followed the policy of the PD

F YOU. Go watch the trial and educate yourself on the topic

 

[Hoover]

An undumb question would be "Since when is an open front door sufficient to support a reasonable suspicion that a burglary in progress?" That was their assumption, not that there was anything illegal about the door being open.. Not being a burglar, I don't know their habits, but I'm thinking burglars probably don't leave the front door open because it would attract attention. Consequently, if the front door is open, even if the house looks ransacked (which I don't think it did based on what the officer could see from outside), is it reasonable to suspect that the burglary is still in progress? I think not. Rather, it's all but certain that if there has been a burglary or home invasion, it's over now, and anyone you see is more likely to be a lawful resident than a burglar. Or worse, it's not a burglary scene but rather the aftermath of a home invasion with residents and/or home invader incapacitated and in need of medical attention.

From the testimony, the house was a mess with stuff all over the floor and cabinet door open, etc. Both cops testified the residence showed signs it could have been burglarized.

 

[Rat187]

A neighbor called and said the door was open at 2 am. The dispatcher relayed the info to the cops as an open structure which FWPD responds to as a possible burglary. The two cops followed the policy of the PD

F YOU. Go watch the trial and educate yourself on the topic

lol…I’m well educated on the subject of the efffffed up FWPD. Way more than your boob tube opinions

 

[Hoover]

lol…I’m well educated on the subject of the efffffed up FWPD. Way more than your boob tube opinions

I guess you’re not.

The cops followed the policy, there was no criminal act.

 

[Rat187]

I guess you’re not.

The cops followed the policy, there was no criminal act.

no, I’m clueless unlike you

 

[Hoover]

no, I’m clueless

I agree.

 

[meh]

From the testimony, the house was a mess with stuff all over the floor and cabinet door open, etc. Both cops testified the residence showed signs it could have been burglarized.

I'm aware of that, and we can see stuff on the floor in the bodycam. I don't think it means what you think it means. These cops ruled out the possibility that the resident was passed out in diabetic coma somewhere inside. How was it reasonable to assume that not only had a burglary occurred but was still in progress while no other explanation for the scenario was as likely? I just don't think this is a "but for the grace of God goes any cop" kind of scenario. I think this is a "but for the grace of God goes any idiot cop who is spoiling some action" kind of scenario.