Fort Worth Police Kill Woman Inside Her Own Home

[TwiceHorn 31,511]

On 10/16/2019 at 12:40 PM, Catdaddyhorn said:

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/crime/article222794210.html

"Sixteen complaints against a civil rights attorney from Philadelphia for practicing law in Texas without a license have been dropped, S. Lee Merritt announced on Friday.

Merritt has gained attention for handling high-profile civil rights cases, mostly involving police misconduct allegations. This includes Jacqueline Craig of Fort Worth; the family of Jordan Edwards, who was killed by former Balch Springs police officer Roy Oliver; the family of O’Shae Terry, who was killed by an Arlington police officer in September; and the family of Botham Jean, who was killed by a Dallas police officer three months ago.

Merritt’s ability to represent clients in Texas courts was challenged by the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, a panel established by the Texas Supreme Court. The committee filed a complaint in January in Tarrant County asking that a judge grant a temporary restraining order prohibiting Merritt from practicing law in Texas, but then filed a motion asking the court to withdraw that complaint. The group refiled in Collin County.

In January, Merritt responded by saying that he only practices in Texas federal courts, making the complaint frivolous. Merritt also works in conjunction with licensed state attorneys, he has said. On Friday, Merritt said the Texas justice system was used as a tool to suppress the rights of the most vulnerable."

He's actually based in Philly. The only reason he's been in the limelight so much in Texas is because we've had a number of high profile cases lately.  I doubt Crump and some of the other Civil rights attorneys passed the bar in every state in the union before becoming the public face for various civil rights violations across the land.  

No, that is no doubt true (your last paragraph).  That he seems to usually associate Texas lawyers is a big help for his case.  Maintaining an office here is a bad thing for his case. 

But, when a lawyer represents someone pro hac vice (provisional admission solely for the purpose of that case) in federal court in a state in which s/he is not admitted, they usually advise their client "at home" in a state where they are admitted.  For example, many lawyers from all over the US represented clients pro hac in the Eastern District of Texas when that was a thing in patent cases.  However, their basic attorney-client relationship existed in a state in which they are licensed.  To use Philly as an example, they represent a Pennsylvania HQ'ed corporation in Philly typically, and appeared in a litigation filed beyond their control in a Texas federal district court.

It's rather odd for a non-Texas lawyer to represent a Texas client in a Texas court without being admitted there.  That it's a federal court case, standing alone, is not an answer to the unauthorized practice question.  That it's a federal case alleging purely federal claims goes a little further toward answering the question in his favor.

It's almost trivial to waive into the Texas bar without taking the Texas Bar Examination, almost.  Not sure why he doesn't do it, either waive in or take the Texas Bar.

Edited October 18, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,511]

On 10/17/2019 at 4:04 PM, Gene Parmesan said:

That's fair.  I defer to the lawdogs who said the interview would have been recorded for potential shenanigans.

One might think there would be corroboration (or not) of the kid's testimony.  Like the gun was found in her hand or near her body.  If that's not the case, not sure there's much point in putting the kid through that.

[TornACL 7,722]

If she died gun in hand, I have no doubt the police union would have clearly made that statement when they leaked the photo (s) of the guns found in the house. 

[Vic Mackey 47,090]

So the father (aunt said he's not the biological father) filed a restraining order to stop the funeral because he wants to arrange to have it paid for.

[Jkwellborn 6,713]

So the father (aunt said he's not the biological father) filed a restraining order to stop the funeral because he wants to arrange to have it paid for.

What?

[Vic Mackey 47,090]

31 minutes ago, Jkwellborn said:

What?

Funeral services pending for Atatiana Jefferson amidst family legal battle

 

DALLAS - Funeral services for Atatiana Jefferson planned for this weekend are at the center of a legal court battle between family members.

Former Fort Worth Police Officer Aaron Dean shot and killed Jefferson in her home early this past Saturday morning. Dean has since resigned and was charged with murder.

Marquis Jefferson, who is listed as Atatiana’s father in her death certificate, was granted a restraining order Friday to get control of her funeral arrangements.

In his petition, Marquis says Bonita Body, Atatiana’s aunt, and Golden Gate Funeral Home denied him from being involved in any planning of her funeral. He said he would suffer “immediate and irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law” if he was not involved in his daughter’s funeral. A judge agreed with him and blocked Bonita from being involved in planning the services.

A spokesperson for Marquis said Friday night that the funeral for Atatiana will now be Thursday at noon at Friendship West.

However, after news of the restraining order came down, attorney Lee Merritt said on Twitter that “the wake and memorial services will proceed as planned,” but he did not give any other specifics.

Civil rights advocate Rev. Al Sharpton and Bishop T.D. Jakes are already set to speak at Atatiana’s funeral on Saturday at the Potter’s House of Dallas. They are open to the public.

Atatiana’s wake on Friday continued, but her body was not on site, church officials said.

Former Dallas Mavericks player Harrison Barnes and his wife offered to cover the full cost of the funeral. It’s unclear if Marquis will accept their offer.

https://www.fox4news.com/news/funeral-services-pending-for-atatiana-jefferson-amidst-family-legal-battle?fbclid=IwAR3fAgRQgyHR0FEuNtAnZz_OEt17jFGinh9ehZyu0_VhIIcs0arGRkvZtTY

Edited October 19, 2019 by Vic Mackey

[Vic Mackey 47,090]

Supposedly he has not been in her life for 15 years.

Some say it's him trying to get money from the lawsuit that will inevitably be filed by the family against the police department or city. But I am not sure what him arranging the funeral has to do with getting some of the money.

Edited October 19, 2019 by Vic Mackey

[TwiceHorn 31,511]

What a shitshow.

The damages claimed in a civil suit would mostly go to her estate, to be distributed according to her will or intestate succession.

However, some close family members may be able to claim their own damages for loss of  consortium, which requires a pretty close relationship.  This may be angling toward that.

[immortal13 4,059]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

What a shitshow.

The damages claimed in a civil suit would mostly go to her estate, to be distributed according to her will or intestate succession.

However, some close family members may be able to claim their own damages for loss of  consortium, which requires a pretty close relationship.  This may be angling toward that.

Seems like that would be pretty hard to prove if they have been estranged for 15 years

Edited October 19, 2019 by immortal13

[Fuck Tim Beck 3,834]

Well you know there is money to be had if Al Sharpton is showing up. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,976]

7 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Seems like that would be pretty hard to prove if they have been estranged for 15 years

Yeah, but would the burden of proof be on the state to prove he hadn't been in her life for fifteen years, or on him? Probably a question for the lawyery types here, but it appears he is getting ready to try and fight that battle. On the other hand, it's not unusual for folks who have been estranged for long periods of time to reconcile. Kinda hard to do if she is dead.

[Jkwellborn 6,713]

Well you know there is money to be had if Al Sharpton is showing up. 

Yeah. Be nice if they’d tell that piece of shit to go fuck himself. But yeah, shit show.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

[Genco 3,041]

Toward the end of his job interview, one of the interviewers asked Dean: “Will you be able to kill somebody if you have to?”

He answered quickly: “No problem.”

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2019/11/06/what-aaron-deans-fort-worth-police-file-shows-about-his-background-before-killing-atatiana-jefferson/

[Huckleberry 33,039]

"What if you don't have to?"

"Still not a problem."

[SameSame 1,705]

"Really you don't have to"

"Listen, it's not a problem."

[Armybrat 40,854]

FWPD HR is good with that.

[spystud13 2,371]

Quote

The father of Atatiana Jefferson has died of a heart attack, family spokesperson Bruce Carter confirmed. 

Marquis Jefferson died around 6:30 p.m. on Saturday at the Methodist Charlton Medical Center in Dallas, according to Carter. He was 59 years old.

"Please keep his family in your prayers and tonight make sure you hug and tell your loved ones how much you love them," Carter said in a written statement.

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/special-reports/atatiana-jefferson/father-of-atatiana-jefferson-dies-family-spokesperson-confirms/287-2695dad6-01bc-49eb-8073-1365c52a504e

 

[El Diablo 4,232]

Someone made this aunt's name up, right?

"In his petition, Marquis says Bonita Body, Atatiana’s aunt,"

[HenryJames 66,134]

Indicted for murder.

[TwiceHorn 31,511]

On 10/18/2019 at 9:09 PM, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Yeah, but would the burden of proof be on the state to prove he hadn't been in her life for fifteen years, or on him? Probably a question for the lawyery types here, but it appears he is getting ready to try and fight that battle. On the other hand, it's not unusual for folks who have been estranged for long periods of time to reconcile. Kinda hard to do if she is dead.

Late, but not on the state.  The defendant(s) in the suit could challenge his standing, as could more immediate family members.

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

On 12/20/2019 at 1:27 PM, HenryJames said:

Indicted for murder.

Here's a link
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/20/us/atatiana-jefferson-death-officer-indicted/index.html

[Cajun 11,722]

He'll end up with probation because "Hero".

[immortal13 4,059]

38 minutes ago, Cajun said:

He'll end up with probation because "Hero".

Don't forget about his pension

[Cajun 11,722]

Well, of course he'll keep his pension.

I mean, he only murdered 1 citizen.

Didn't even kill the dog.  

[Pato del Muerto 52,532]

Rookie cop. No pension to keep. 

[Jkwellborn 6,713]

Well, of course he'll keep his pension.
I mean, he only murdered 1 citizen.
Didn't even kill the dog.  

He just needs to be retrained to get those numbers up.

[Cajun 11,722]

Teamwork -

Hero 1 - "Get on the ground!"

Hero 2 - "DO NOT MOVE!"

Hero 3 - "Crawl to me with your palms up!!!"

Hero 2 - "DON'T fucking MOVE!!!"

Hero 3 - "I said CRAWL TO ME MUTHERFUCKER!!!"

Hero 1 - "If you move again I will shoot you!"

All 3 Heroes - "STOP RESISTING!"

Blam blam blam blam pew pew pew

Hero 1 to the other 2 Heroes - Who's got the keys to trunk of the squad car?

Edited December 22, 2019 by Cajun

[Brisketexan 105,168]

Trial started today.

No black jurors.  About 20% of Tarrant County is black, but not one on the jury.

Odds are, he walks.  She had a GUN!

This case still makes me puke.  Cops make me puke.  It all makes me puke.

[Herbie Hancock 7,369]

Trial started today.
No black jurors.  About 20% of Tarrant County is black, but not one on the jury.
Odds are, he walks.  She had a GUN!
This case still makes me puke.  Cops make me puke.  It all makes me puke.

Lawyers on both sides of the argument are the ones that choose jurors, correct?

[Captainant 27,685]

2 minutes ago, Herbie Hancock said:

Lawyers on both sides of the argument are the ones that choose jurors, correct?

One side can unilaterally remove jurors, or gin up a reason to strike them "with cause". But yes, both the prosecution and defense participate in juror selection 

[YGIFS 19,452]

Preemptive strikes can be used to dismiss during voir dire.  You can easily remove 3 black jurors, as the defense, under the guise of "biased because they lived near the deceased."  

I was feeling lazy once and felt like getting out of jury duty.  Probably should pay my dues for living in a free society, but I was just starting a new job and bought a new house so had lots to do.  Saw the defense attorney coming a mile away.  Despite my very white-sounding name, I worked into the questioning that my mother was from Mexico and I spoke a bit in Spanish.  I was getting my parking validated by the time he finished striking me from the pool.  

[Gatorubet 30,267]

On 12/21/2019 at 4:07 PM, Cajun said:

He'll end up with probation because "Hero".

Clearly, she was dressed sort of furtive movement-y. 

[Herbie Hancock 7,369]

One side can unilaterally remove jurors, or gin up a reason to strike them "with cause". But yes, both the prosecution and defense participate in juror selection 

So would it be reasonable to say that the reason there are no black jurors is because of the lawyers?

[Brisketexan 105,168]

4 minutes ago, Herbie Hancock said:

So would it be reasonable to say that the reason there are no black jurors is because of the lawyers?

Mostly the defense lawyers.  There's also some element of random chance.  And there's an element of whether the judge agreed to challenges-for-cause of black jurors. 

[Jkwellborn 6,713]

Preemptive strikes can be used to dismiss during voir dire.  You can easily remove 3 black jurors, as the defense, under the guise of "biased because they lived near the deceased."  
I was feeling lazy once and felt like getting out of jury duty.  Probably should pay my dues for living in a free society, but I was just starting a new job and bought a new house so had lots to do.  Saw the defense attorney coming a mile away.  Despite my very white-sounding name, I worked into the questioning that my mother was from Mexico and I spoke a bit in Spanish.  I was getting my parking validated by the time he finished striking me from the pool.  

After a point, they can only strike so many right?

[Brisketexan 105,168]

16 minutes ago, Jkwellborn said:

After a point, they can only strike so many right?

You get a limited number of "strikes" that don't need a reason (peremptory challenges) - depends on the case and the judge as to how many you get.  Then, you get unlimited challenges for cause (Juror 11 is the cousin of the victim, and is thus inherently biased, things like that).  Courts don't like to sustain many of those, though.

But, it can easily work that if in the first 20 jurors, there are 4 black people, and the defense strikes 3 of them with peremptory challenges, and maybe the 4th is struck for cause by one side or the other, or even the peremptory challenge of the other side because the juror seems like a nutbar.  Thus, no black jurors.

[Dahobbs 17,626]

16 minutes ago, Jkwellborn said:

After a point, they can only strike so many right?

Each side gets a set number of challenges. I think it varies on the criminal side depending on the nature of the charges. However, if one side appears to use its strikes to eliminate jurors based on race, sex, or ethnicity, then those can be subject to a constitutional challenge (Batson challenge). There is no limits on strikes for cause.  

[Herbie Hancock 7,369]

So we can appropriately blame the lawyers for there being no black jurors, correct?

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

5 hours ago, Herbie Hancock said:

Lawyers on both sides of the argument are the ones that choose jurors, correct?

 

3 hours ago, Herbie Hancock said:

So would it be reasonable to say that the reason there are no black jurors is because of the lawyers?

 

16 minutes ago, Herbie Hancock said:

So we can appropriately blame the lawyers for there being no black jurors, correct?

socratic method for fourth graders

[0xdeadbeef 1,651]

I remember following this story when it happened and was making headlines, but it's been off the radar for a while.   

I scanned this thread, but information is scarce here and then went quiet.

Can someone recap the facts.  Did they ever say where they found the gun?  Not that it matters, but it seemed like they were implying she was holding the gun without actually saying that.  

 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2022 by 0xdeadbeef

[El Tri 412]

44 minutes ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

I remember following this story when it happened and was making headlines, but it's been off the radar for a while.   

I scanned this thread, but information is scarce here and then went quiet.

Can someone recap the facts.  Did they ever say where they found the gun?  Not that it matters, but it seemed like they were implying she was holding the gun without actually saying that.  

 

 

 

she was holding a gun, in her home, well within her rights. fuck that cop

[YGIFS 19,452]

Seriously, this fucking timeline.  

2A Texans like me, "The government better not try to come into my house and take my guns!" 

Texas Police, "We're coming into your house.  If you have guns, we're going to kill you and take them!"

2A Texans like me, "Did not see that coming.  At least we're not on some kinda national registry."

Texas Police, "No, you're not on a national registry.  However, there will be a digital online obituary for you."  

[Herbie Hancock 7,369]

1 hour ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

I remember following this story when it happened and was making headlines, but it's been off the radar for a while.   

I scanned this thread, but information is scarce here and then went quiet.

Can someone recap the facts.  Did they ever say where they found the gun?  Not that it matters, but it seemed like they were implying she was holding the gun without actually saying that.  

 

 

 

Intellectually challenged and genetically deficient shitstain cop was “allegedly” called to investigate a wide open front door of a residence. As he’s doing his night prowler impersonation outside of a window he sees a female inside of said residence holding a firearm and without announcing his presence begins firing into the residence from the exterior. Female inside of residence holding gun was the homeowner.

Shitbird cop got fired and is now claiming everything he did up to and including shooting and killing a woman in her own home was well within the law.

[Dahobbs 17,626]

3 hours ago, Herbie Hancock said:

So we can appropriately blame the lawyers for there being no black jurors, correct?

No. Not enough information at this point. We don't know what the original jury pool was. But, most likely, the only side that would actively strike black jurors for this particular case would be the defendant. 

[TwiceHorn 31,511]

I figured pretty strongly that Amber Guyger would get convicted in Dallas County if there wasn't some tricky way mistake of fact could operate in her favor.

Thirry-two miles to the west, I'm not going to make any bets at all.

[Herbie Hancock 7,369]

57 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

No. Not enough information at this point. We don't know what the original jury pool was. But, most likely, the only side that would actively strike black jurors for this particular case would be the defendant’s lawyer

Fify.

[Dahobbs 17,626]

46 minutes ago, Herbie Hancock said:

Fify.

I really don't know what point you're trying to make here. 

[4th and 5 4,915]

Unlimited challenges for cause

10 peremptory challenges per side in district court

99/100 it’s the state using strikes based on race

can’t wait to see the battle of the use of force experts

[Brisketexan 105,168]

Guilty of manslaughter.  I can see it, based on the circumstances.  "Murder" is a high bar.

Murder:

Quote

A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual;

Manslaughter:

Quote

A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.

That said.....I could damn well have convicted on murder as well.  He intended to kill her.  He pulled a gun and shot a person in her own home, an intentional act and he knew what he was doing.  The argument is that he was reckless because he made a mistake - that is, the legal resident was mistaken for a bad guy.  So, he did make a mistake of identification.  And that mistake was the predicate for his action; had he known the person he saw was the legal resident, he wouldn't have shot.  

I didn't listen to all the evidence, so don't know what the jury heard/saw in total.  But based on the general case, I can see either verdict.  I'm ultimately just glad they came back with a guilty verdict.

Cops, you should know that when you use deadly force, you are at risk of going to fucking prison.  You don't have a license to kill at will.  The more cops we send to prison for this shit, maybe they'll get it through their heads that treating every other human as a target who has the burden to convince the cops NOT to kill them is a shitty, stupid approach.