Dallas cop enters wrong apartment, kills Black man Botham Jean who lives there [LIVE TRIAL LINK]
- Thread starter PliggaNease
- Start date
Swat. Might be a sniper
Nah...he was on patrol with her.
Ask the defense if she was with friends with anyone that was not a cop.
We gonna see a bunch of cops take the stand after a cop killed a civilian?
Who does this make sense to?
And talking about how dangerous things always are?
Not stating how you help the community?
This is beyond callous to regular civilians and bias to enforcement
He said he was swat
Oh, why she was riding with SWAT?
Their trying to frame the narrative or paint the picture of Police running into danger like heroes and shit. It's fluff...Back the Badge bullshit.
That's what the fuck you signed on for but as soon as some shit jumps off, "I feared for my life!"
Idk. They mentioned before they do do that sometimes
She wasn't, he's moved on to be on the SWAT Team.
it's out of character for her, but yet she said it...
She didnt send those messages to her like she did him, and they are just relying on the facts.
I want the sista for the prosecution to be clear in her questions...she's stumbling.
This was well argued and stated from an unbiased point of view. Police are trained to fire centermass with the intent to disable rather than kill however, deadly force is the most extreme force and must be met wit the THREAT. If the threat doesn't warrant deadly force then you deescalate as necessary. That is why the USE of Force continuum is a ladder. Based upon Objectable Reasonableness. The Standard that ALL LEOS must train on. Besides busting and omitting all POLICE protocols she used the most extreme force available FIRST. She never tried any others which means her 'INTENT' to kill using deadly force was already committed to. Her situation NEVER warranted deadly force as an option and certainly not as a first option.
USE of FORCE LADDER
https://www.srselfdefense.com/blog/civilian-use-of-force-continuum/
In Graham v. Connor (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court answered these questions. The Supreme Court ruled that police use of force must be “objectively reasonable”—that an officer's actions were reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him, without regard to his underlying intent or motivation. (SHE SAID SHE MEANT TO KILL, PRE MEDITATED. THAT'S WHY IT ISN'T MANSLAUGTER. IT WAS INTENTIONAL)
The 1989 Supreme Court decision in Graham v. Connor established an objective reasonableness standard for when an officer can legally use force on a suspect and how much force can be used. ... Courts should consider: The immediate threat faced by officers or others at the scene. The severity of the crime at issue.
A use of force continuum is a standard that provides law enforcement officers and civilians with guidelines as to how much force may be used against a resisting subject in a given situation. In some ways, it is similar to the U.S. military's escalation of force (EOF)
Most law enforcement agencies have policies that guide their use of force. These policies describe a escalating series of actions an officer may take to resolve a situation. This continuum generally has many levels, and officers are instructed to respond with a level of force appropriate to the situation at hand, acknowledging that the officer may move from one part of the continuum to another in a matter of seconds.
An example of a use-of-force continuum follows:
- Officer Presence — No force is used. Considered the best way to resolve a situation.
- The mere presence of a law enforcement officer works to deter crime or diffuse a situation.
- Officers' attitudes are professional and nonthreatening.
- Verbalization — Force is not-physical.
- Officers issue calm, nonthreatening commands, such as "Let me see your identification and registration."
- Officers may increase their volume and shorten commands in an attempt to gain compliance. Short commands might include "Stop," or "Don't move."
- Empty-Hand Control — Officers use bodily force to gain control of a situation.
- Soft technique. Officers use grabs, holds and joint locks to restrain an individual.
- Hard technique. Officers use punches and kicks to restrain an individual.
- Less-Lethal Methods — Officers use less-lethal technologies to gain control of a situation.
- Blunt impact. Officers may use a baton or projectile to immobilize a combative person.
- Chemical. Officers may use chemical sprays or projectiles embedded with chemicals to restrain an individual (e.g., pepper spray).
- Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs). Officers may use CEDs to immobilize an individual. CEDs discharge a high-voltage, low-amperage jolt of electricity at a distance.
- Lethal Force — Officers use lethal weapons to gain control of a situation. Should only be used if a suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or another individual.
- Officers use deadly weapons such as firearms to stop an individual's actions. (IF WARRANTED, YOU MUST BE ABLE TO CORRECTLY ARTICULATE IN COURT WHY YOU USED DEADLY FORCE. IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT THE MODEL IS STANDARD FOR ALL AGENCIES, CONUS AND US TERRITORIES. IT IS MADE TO EXONERATE YOU IN COURT IF YOU MADE THE CORRECT DECISION)
Last edited:
I think this hurts her more honestly. According to the witness, she showed more care and concern for a changing table left on the highway than the the man she murdered.
True
Lmaoooo....yeah they’re talking like they at the family house after the funeral. They can all visit her in prison
Atty. Lee Merritt did a walk through of Jean's apartment last year. It's on YT.
There's another one out there of him documenting the layout...not for CNN.
Last edited:
Right when you open the door, on the right side, she choosed a gun instead of clicking on the light.
Its as you walk in the apartment on the right side of the wall. Just like any home you walk into.
I've muted the TV on her people. All that lying
Well at least the killer got a penpal.