That was my first take as well when reading gooms post. I haven't looked into this outside this thread but my immediate thought was why didn't the officer announce themselves. We have seen how no knock raids go after all...

They thought the burglar was still inside the house and they didn't want a hostage situation.

Sure, but again that's not to my knowledge actual protocol and for this very clear reason. Look what happened due to lack of it.

is there bodycam footage of this incident?

So cops can just walk on your property and shoot you through your own window.

Doesn't sound like private property exists at all. The government owns both it and your life, and conservatives want to keep it that way.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Dec 14 2022 10:30pm

imagine reading a known hack presenting the cops' official narrative as "fact", and uncritically believing that's what actually happened, lol.
imagine seeing someone trying to portray the counter-argument to "a cop entering your home and killing you on sight can be reasonably described as self-defence" is simply "all cops are bastards".
imagine thinking a person summarising the situation like that had any credibility or objectivity on the matter whatsoever, and blindly accept their framing.

you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to do so.

and even if you did, the conclusion would still be that drawing your gun in what you expect to be a self-defence scenario in your own home - the wet dream of every ammo-sexual - is a massive risk to your own life. it could always be a cop who decided to silently enter your home and kill you on sight, because they are afraid for their life themselves, and don't have the nerve or training to solve the situation peacefully, and know they will likely get away with it anyway...

This post was edited by fender on Dec 15 2022 01:46am

Which was a bunch of ass covering in front of the BLM riots. At trial they've gone into detail that officers are instructed to respond to open structure calls on suspicion of burglary in progress, by not alerting residents. That was very clearly the training, the handbook says they should secure all exits and investigate without announcing themselves.

At the trial the prosecutors focused on the 'secure all exits' part by accusing the officers of not following the book because they left the front door unguarded. But thats specious reasoning. They didn't know what exits were on the back of the house, they had to look first, then determine if they could cover it or need to call for backup. The prosecutors made contradictory arguments they should have covered the front (and left the back unguarded), or waited for backup before investigating (leaving the exits unguarded)
As the defense pointed out, even if they had called for backup- not the normal procedure- they still wouldn't be announcing themselves as per training. So someone would still walk around the house and look in that window and the exact same confrontation could unfold

Which all leads back to the question of whether both Atatian Jefferson and Aaron Dean had reasonable beliefs the other person was a robber pointing a gun at them in that split second, that they both has a legal right to be where they were while armed, that they both has a legal right to self defense in reasonable fear for their life and their (partner/nephew). If she had shot first, would she be on trial?

well I guarantee you that if she was, prosecutors wouldn't round out their closing arguments by saying, 'havent you ever know some of *those* black people, you know, *that* kind?

Every time someone draws a gun in a self defense in their own home its already a massive risk to their own life. Thats why they are drawing the gun. Thats the point. If you look through a window and someone is pointing a gun right at your head in that instant, you're going to wish you could shoot first.

For a jury to rule that its murder if you shoot someone pointing a gun at you, in the dark, in a momentary confrontation when they are already pointing a gun at you and you have a reasonable belief they are a burglar- that would strip Americans of their right to self defense. Which is no doubt why you support it.

If you have an issue with police procedures dictating an unannounced exterior investigation of suspected burgled open structures, you could just petition police to change that playbook. But they do that specifically because its intended to save more lives by avoiding hostage scenarios and threats to residents by the burglars.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Dec 15 2022 08:34am

I am not saying the protocol is bad but if it continues to be the way it is, meaning police officers always not announcing themselves and just going up into the house, similar tragedies like this will continue to happen.

Well someone once upon a time figured the risks of confrontations between burglars and home owners outweighed the risk of confrontations with home owners, when houses were visibly ransacked and left open. They have different procedures when doors are closed. If thats a bad policy, there are ways to change it. In Minneapolis cops had a dumb procedure of no knock search warrants that clearly favored risks to evidence over risk to lives. Which is why it was changed, but not reason to put the cops who shot Amir Locke on trial.

But as we saw with Kim Potter- appeals to emotion and prejudice against cops work. Hence the clip in the OP. Once you've got a case in front of a jury, it doesn't matter as much what the facts or law are

This post was edited by Goomshill on Dec 15 2022 09:26am