TX - Botham Shem Jean, 26, killed when police officer entered his apartment, Dallas, Sept 2018 #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
My apologies to you if somehow you thought the advocate for the defendant comment was directed at you, it was not.

It was directed at the poster in response to his post claiming a story existed on Dallas Morning News that exonoerates the defendant and defies public record, just for starters.

Peace

I an not a champion or asvicat

I am not a champion or advocate of the defendant & I don't know what "alleged article" you speak of.
 
Gigglingtoes, where did you find Phillip T. Livingston for Dallas' facebook post? Do you have a link or a full page screen shot? I followed the link supplied and didn't find that post.
 
I do feel badly for the upstanding LEO's, who truly care about people, and do a terrific job. The bad ones, like "Killer Guyger", make them all look bad.

There are actually some terrific LEO's. I am sorry people on this thread have met the bad apples.
 
I do feel badly for the upstanding LEO's, who truly care about people, and do a terrific job. The bad ones, like "Killer Guyger", make them all look bad.

There are actually some terrific LEO's. I am sorry people on this thread have met the bad apples.
Upstanding LEOs must be horrified at what this killer has done. They know if reflects on them and their profession.
 
Reporting from Dallas Morning News Sept 15 by writer Sheryl Avrill shoots down a lot of the discussion on this thread. 1. The forensic evidence supports Amber's version of events. 2. Amber's story has always been the same: she was in the doorway, Jean was inside the apartment (10-12 ft away). The DPD affidavit was written BEFORE they interviewed her.
3. The earwitnesses made no mention of knocking or "let me in" when they were interviewed.
Actually I do remember reading somewhere about the above points 1 and 2... But not worded exactly like that, not to mention I think it was said 12-15 ft. Without a link, it is not possible to verify, but I can check.

Don't remember seeing point 3 reported anywhere at all.
 
There is a "Shooting incident fact sheet" floating around on FB, supposedly sent out to "Mayor and Members of the City Council" from "Asst City Manager Jon Fortune" the day after this happened. It states the initial understanding was that the officer was working security at the apartment complex and had a master key. Now where would that info come from?

I've been waiting for msm to pick it up so it can be discussed here.
Anyone have any contacts in the local media world?
 
Yup the link is there

He commented on his own post. You’ll have to look at the comment section.
I tried that, could you give a few more specifics? Date and time stamps? Proximity on the page linked? Who else is shown in the thread? Thanks, I still haven't seen it on Facebook.
 
I wrote this on thread #2 and want to bring it here and update it a bit. (updates are in bold)

I hope we can all remember that Mr. Jean is a victim-- one who has no voice, one whose last words were "Why did you do that?" Any attempt to look at his life to justify why he died not having harmed this woman but as some sort of criminal is repulsive. Even if he made noise till the cows came home or had a steady stream of late night accountants coming by (as is his right as a tenant), he did not deserve to have his last moments on this earth be terror at such a young age. The warrant looked for contraband and it is reported that he had 10.4 grams of marijuana and even this does not rise to the level of cause to blame him for her wrong doing. Even if his door was ajar, he had every right to be confused or non-compliant as he walked toward his door in his underwear. The person-- the shooter--shot him in the darkened living room, not identifying herself as an officer, not retreating and getting back up for the intruder in "her apartment" or as some say her castle. Her actions go against police policy for use of deadly force (ois). She entered a darkened room, unaware that there could be two or three more intruders who could have shot her dead or killed her in some other way. Her actions make no sense. His actions make sense. All he did was to leave his bedroom and go into his living room toward his door-- an action that I bet many of us do multiple times a day and have never thought or said, "Hey, I could get killed doing this." Because it would not make sense to think that, especially in an apartment with gates on the garage and new fangled keys and security cameras and seen as a very secure facility by the residents (looking for link).

In my opinion, the most reasonable action would have included exiting the potentially lethal situation that this officer believed she was encountering and call for back up. If this was a burglary, it was already in progress. There was little to no way out except the door. In many burglaries, the perps do not want to stick around once they have been detected. Going into that apartment, the officer/killer made herself vulnerable and a potential victim, in addition to her actions being against her department"s Use of Deadly Force policy.
 
I think it is important that we all have the same information, so I am posting the link for the deadly force policy and the officer involved shooting procedures.

Dallas Police Department Use of Deadly Force Policy.

General Order 906.00 - Dallas Police Department Use of Deadly Force Policy

906.00 USE OF DEADLY FORCE

906.01 Philosophy

A. This philosophy is intended as a broad guide to the use of deadly force and as a moral and ethical approach to the use of deadly force policy. Although not intended as a strictly enforced set of rules, the philosophy statement describes the manner in which the procedures will be applied.

B. Protection of human life is a primary goal of the Police Department; therefore, police officers have a responsibility to use only the degree of force necessary to protect and preserve life.
C. Deadly force will be used with great restraint and as a last resort only when the level of resistance warrants the use of deadly force. The Dallas Police Department places a greater value on human life than on the protection of property; therefore, the use of deadly force is not allowed to protect property interests.

906.02 Use of Deadly Force Policy

A. Justification for the Use of Deadly Force -In all situations, justification for the use of deadly force must be limited to the facts reasonably apparent to the officer at the time the officer decides to use the force.
B. Definitions

1. Reasonably Perceive - The facts or circumstances the employee knows, or should know, that would cause an ordinary and prudent peace officer to act or think in a similar way under similar circumstances.
2. Reasonable Alternative - An action that may be taken by the officer that may allow the officer to avoid the use of deadly force.

3. Reasonable Belief - A belief that would be held by an ordinary and prudent person in the same circumstances as the actor.
4. Serious Bodily Injury - Bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss of impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

C. Avoiding the Use of Deadly Force
1. At the point when an officer should reasonably perceive the potential exists that deadly force may be an outcome of any situation, the officer must use reasonable alternatives if time and opportunities permit. The reasonableness of the action is based upon the time available, the opportunity of performing the action, and the facts apparent to the officer prior to and during the incident.
2. Planned and supervised hazardous entry situations are recognized as meeting the requirements of reasonable alternatives above.
3. Officers will not fire their weapons under conditions that would unnecessarily subject bystanders or hostages to death or possible injury except to preserve life or to prevent serious bodily injury.

D. Authorization to Use Deadly Force -Officers will only use deadly force to protect themselves or another person from imminent death or serious bodily injury.
E. Drawing or Displaying Firearms - Officers may draw or display firearms when there is a threat or reasonable belief that there is a threat to life or they have a reasonable fear for their own safety and/or the safety of others.

F. Discharging Firearms at Moving Vehicles -
1. Discharging firearms at a moving or fleeing vehicle is prohibited unless it is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person.
2. Officers will not voluntarily place themselves in a position in front of an oncoming vehicle where deadly force is
a probable outcome.
3. When confronting an oncoming vehicle, officers will move out of its path, if possible, rather than fire at the vehicle.

G. Officers will not fire warning shots.
H. Policy Restrictions - The restrictions of this policy shall not apply if an off-duty officer acts within the provisions of current state statutes to protect the employee's personal property. In this case the officer is acting as a private citizen.

http://www.dallaspolice.net/reports/Shared Documents/General-Order-906.pdf
 
Investigation of Officer Involved Shooting

Investigating Officer Involved Shooting (OIS) Incidents
Dallas police officers respond to approximately 600,000 calls for service each year. Combined with these calls are the numerous citizen contacts made when officers provide general assistance, participate in community engagement programs, enforce traffic laws and take proactive enforcement to disrupt and interdict criminal activities, leading to roughly 1,000,000 citizen contacts per year. Day in and day out these numerous contacts result in providing professional service to our citizens and make Dallas a safer community to live.

Sometimes these contacts place officers in dangerous situations. Officers have an occupational responsibility to enter into circumstances which clearly could place them in danger while they are serving the community. All the while, officers have an affirmative obligation to use lethal force as a last resort and are specifically trained to use reasonable alternatives as time and opportunities permit. Yet there are incidents in which the use of lethal force cannot be avoided.

When an officer becomes involved in an incident in which another person is seriously injured or killed, or where a death or serious injury occurs to a person in police custody, two different investigations begin immediately. Responding supervisors take detailed actions to preserve the crime scene and isolate involved personnel. Notifications are made for specialized resources to respond. Internal communications are made to affected police commanders and the Chief of Police. Involved personnel are removed from field duty pending a thorough and unbiased review of their actions.

A criminal investigation is conducted by the Special Investigations Unit (SIU). SIU is comprised of experienced homicide detectives and seasoned leadership. These detectives interview all witnesses and direct an exhaustive collection of evidence. Specially trained Crime Scene physical evidence detectives assist SIU. Initial findings are shared with the FBI Civil Rights Unit within the first 24 hours. The completed investigation is referred to the Dallas County District Attorney's Office for independent review.

The District Attorney's Office then presents the case to a Grand Jury of county citizens for examination. The Grand Jury makes a determination whether or not the officer committed a criminal act when involved in the OIS. If the Grand Jury concludes that the officer's actions did not constitute a criminal action, the officer is no-billed, meaning he/she is not charged with a crime. However, if the Grand Jury determines the officer's actions were of a criminal nature the officer will be true-billed, meaning he/she will be charged with a criminal offense.

A concurrent administrative investigation is performed by the Internal Affairs Division (IAD). This review determines whether the officer's actions are in compliance with departmental policy, training and use of force guidelines. Outcomes from this investigation guide the department toward improving its training and procedures. Additionally, if the IAD investigation finds that an officer violated policy, whether or not the shooting was justified, disciplinary action or additional training may be imposed. Officer involved shootings data
 
These seem to speak directly to AG's situation she created.

A. Justification for the Use of Deadly Force -In all situations, justification for the use of deadly force must be limited to the facts reasonably apparent to the officer at the time the officer decides to use the force.

1. Reasonably Perceive - The facts or circumstances the employee knows, or should know, that would cause an ordinary and prudent peace officer to act or think in a similar way under similar circumstances.

2. Reasonable Alternative - An action that may be taken by the officer that may allow the officer to avoid the use of deadly force.

3. Reasonable Belief - A belief that would be held by an ordinary and prudent person in the same circumstances as the actor.


H. Policy Restrictions -
The restrictions of this policy shall not apply if an off-duty officer acts within the provisions of current state statutes to protect the employee's personal property. In this case the officer is acting as a private citizen.

http://www.dallaspolice.net/reports/Shared Documents/General-Order-906.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
199
Guests online
1,884
Total visitors
2,083

Forum statistics

Threads
600,359
Messages
18,107,496
Members
230,992
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top