GUILTY TX - Atatiana Jefferson, 28, fatally shot at home, Fort Worth, Oct 2019 *officer charged* #2
- Thread starter GuyfromCanada
- Start date
Update: The jury in #AaronDean's murder trial will work until 7 PM and then stop if they don't get a verdict before then. We'll start back tomorrow morning. (@wfaa)
Yes, Wondering how far apart in agreement.
- Joined
- May 6, 2016
- Messages
- 3,137
- Reaction score
- 28,315
I have no idea how this is going to go. I am guessing they are solidly at a stand-still with the two camps aligned like this based on these statutes argued in the closing arguments:
Homicide: Penal Code Chapter 19 Criminal Homicide
"intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual"
Self-defense: Penal Code Chapter 9 Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility
"a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force"
"The use of force against another is not justified if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force"
For acquittal
- Defendant did not provoke the victim's attempted use of force and was acting in self-defense
- The victim was acting unlawfully by holding a gun on a uniformed officer
For conviction
- Defendant committed an act of murder by intentionally shooting to cause bodily injury resulting in death
- Defendant cannot claim self-defense because:
a) defendant provoked the victim's use of force
b) victim was not acting unlawfully, therefore cannot act against them with lethal force
Homicide: Penal Code Chapter 19 Criminal Homicide
"intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual"
Self-defense: Penal Code Chapter 9 Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility
"a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force"
"The use of force against another is not justified if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force"
For acquittal
- Defendant did not provoke the victim's attempted use of force and was acting in self-defense
- The victim was acting unlawfully by holding a gun on a uniformed officer
For conviction
- Defendant committed an act of murder by intentionally shooting to cause bodily injury resulting in death
- Defendant cannot claim self-defense because:
a) defendant provoked the victim's use of force
b) victim was not acting unlawfully, therefore cannot act against them with lethal force
Did the nephew say that he saw the officer’s badge through the window? I know he didn’t say that on the stand but did he say that in his first interview immediately after the incident? Because if he did then presumably she did as well.
I’m asking bc I thought I heard argument about this during his testimony. I’m also asking because where do they get the whole “victim was acting unlawfully by holding a gun at a uniformed officer” part. Could she see him through the window? I didn’t watch enough of the trial to get clarity on this….
I’m asking bc I thought I heard argument about this during his testimony. I’m also asking because where do they get the whole “victim was acting unlawfully by holding a gun at a uniformed officer” part. Could she see him through the window? I didn’t watch enough of the trial to get clarity on this….
- Joined
- May 6, 2016
- Messages
- 3,137
- Reaction score
- 28,315
Those are very good questions. The defense argued in close that the victim was acting unlawfully by holding a gun on a uniformed police officer. What he did not say was that she knew it was a uniformed police officer. The defense never claimed that the boy said he saw a badge to my knowledge.
It sounded to me that the defense argument is that it doesn't matter if the victim knew it was an officer or not, it's illegal for her to hold the gun on him. I am confused how that can be true.
ETA - as I understand the way the statute is written, in order for Dean to claim self-defense, the victim had to be acting unlawfully. So that was a major point in the defense's close.
Thank you. Interesting. Well now I understand why the jury might be having trouble. I don’t think she was acting unlawfully if she thought it was a burglar and didn’t see him enough to know he was a cop. He didn’t announce himself so that theory is shaky at the very least. I need to go back and listen to jury instructions. I still think that from his perspective it was self-defense. But it was self-defense from her perspective as well.
Now I’m remembering them saying the nephew knew it was the boy cop that shot her. I swear I heard that at some point around the time the nephew testified. This would indicate he could see through the window and if he could see so could she. But o don’t believe he testified this way. So it’s not in evidence.
Re: Did the nephew say that he saw the officer’s badge through the window?
Scroll to 17:00 in defense closing.
Nephew during interview: "I saw a gun out the window and I thought I saw a badge."
Defense: Atatiana Jefferson Had Rights Until She Pointed Gun at Fort Worth Police Officer
Thank you! Well this does it. Not guilty on all charges. If the nephew could see all that then so could she. I don’t know why she rushed to get the gun and why she pointed it. Now I’m not so sure she would have a perfect self-defense if she had shot him.
I also don’t understand a woman alone leaving doors open and then going in the back to play video games, which are typically loud and consume all your attention. I know they were trying to air the house but I would stay in the front of the house while the doors are open.
Last edited:
I found it interesting that testimony of nephew on witness stand was so much better prepared than defendant's own testimony. Dean had three years to prepare to testify, but his testimony was pitiful, imo. On the stand, he repeatedly admitted to performing "bad policing" the night he killed AJ.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 6, 2016
- Messages
- 3,137
- Reaction score
- 28,315
If I understand correctly, the argument is that because the defense counsel said that the 8 year old boy "thought he saw a badge" that then she must have known he was a police officer. And that with that knowledge, she still chose to hold a gun on him. (With all due respect, this seems like quite a leap to me.) Even if she were to have come to realize that he was an officer, did she have the time to react to that before being shot? It does not seem that Dean gave her any opportunity to take action to avoid being shot. It is worth noting that the prosecution counter-argued that the autopsy showed that she was bent over when shot and could not have been holding the gun upright, therefore, could not have been violating the law.
I imagine our thread on this case is mirroring what the jury is deliberating right now. I can't imagine how difficult this must be.
I think the nephew’s statement immediately after the incident is very important. I think it’s quite a reasonable inference that she was able to see what her nephew saw. And if there’s an inference that reasonably points to innocence then the jury is instructed to go with not guilty. They are supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant. I think he reacted quickly because that’s his training. There’s no intent to kill or indifference in his actions.
I don’t believe he would’ve shot her if she wasn’t pointing the gun. It would’ve given him more time to say “police” etc. But it seems she raised the gun quickly.
Gardenista
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2016
- Messages
- 19,034
- Reaction score
- 157,598
BBM, maybe the meth in her system had her a little messed up? I did get the feeling it wasn't a large amount, but when they were talking about it the video got cut off.
It's at the end of this video - Day 3
- Joined
- May 6, 2016
- Messages
- 3,137
- Reaction score
- 28,315
They have reached a verdict. Will be announced 2:30CST.
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 64
- Guests online
- 3,387
- Total visitors
- 3,451