Police intend to seek a warrant against the Dallas officer who shot and killed 26-year-old Botham Jean on Thursday night when she entered his apartment, apparently mistaking it for her own.
Police Chief Hall confirmed that the officer’s blood was drawn to test for alcohol and drugs, and have also invited the Texas Rangers to conduct an independent investigation as they have ceased handling the matter under their normal protocol as an officer-involved shooting.
Through the Chief, the Dallas Police Department has reached out to the Jean family, confirming during a press conference that she had indeed spoken with the deceased’s sister Allisa, reassuring her that they are working diligently and have invited an outside agency to investigate the “unique situation.”
Scores of online tributes have been posted on social media platforms Facebook, Twitter and Instagram since the news of the shooting. His uncle, Earl Jean, posting the heartbreaking message, “my heart goes with you my boy … never thought this day would come, wanted to be there for you always my boy … how can this nasty world take you away from me” and his sister, Allisa Charles-Findley’s tearful post, “just last week I was thinking of what to get you for your birthday, now I have to go pick out your casket. You will always be my baby brother. I love you with all of my heart Botham Shem Jean. Until we meet again my love.”
Dallas Police Department have yet to name the officer who fired the fatal shot or give an explanation as to how she entered into the wrong apartment.
Probable cause, reasonable suspicion, can easily be found in court cases and Law School textbooks but are much harder to find in real life situations. There is an absence of significant constraint on the exercise of police discretion when dealing with minorities and African Americans enabled by the actions of the United States Supreme court by eviscerating the fourth amendment. Police officers have been given a mandate to operate freely without regard to fourth amendment rights. The fourth Amendment states “People have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. Many Legal scholars have recognized a sharp turn in Supreme Court fourth amendment jurisprudence. Warrantless searches (California V Acevado), have been upheld by the courts. Virtually all constitutionally protected civil liberties have been undermined by the court even in cases of unreasonable suspicion. (Terry V Ohio 1968). We probably will never know the full circumstances surrounding the unfortunate death of this young promising St. Lucian. (Blue wall of silence) The officer involved did not have a search warrant to enter the young man’s apartment and there was no probable cause nor reasonably suspicion that this young intelligent St. Lucian was engaged in any wrongdoing. But we must be mindful that the Supreme Court has facilitated unfairly targeting of African Americans and failed to protect minorities from the excesses of majoritarian democracy and guaranteeing constitutional rights for groups deemed unpopular or subject to prejudice. The Courts have adopted rules that would maximize the amount of racial discrimination that occurs. Eric Garner of Staten Island was killed for selling loose cigarettes. “I CAN’T BREATHE” to be continued
Probable cause, reasonable suspicion, can easily be found in court cases and Law school text books but are much harder to find in real life. There is an absence of significant constraint on the exercise of police discretion when dealing with minorities and African Americans which has been sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme court by eviscerating the fourth amendment. Police officers have been given a mandate to operate freely without regard to the 4th amendment.
The 4th amendment states “People have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized”. Many legal scholars have recognized a sharp turn in Supreme Court fourth amendment jurisprudence. Warrantless searches (California V Acevado) have been upheld by the supreme court. Virtually all constitutionally protected civil liberties have been undermined by the court in cases of unreasonable suspicion. (Terry V Ohio) 1968.
We probably will never know the full circumstances surrounding the unfortunate death of this young St. Lucian in the absence of video tape. The officer involved did not have a search warrant to enter the domain of this young man, and there was no probable cause nor reasonable suspicion that the individual was involved in any wrongdoing. But we must be mindful that the supreme court of the United States have facilitated unfair targeting of African Americans and failed to protect minorities from the excesses of majoritarian democracy and guaranteeing constitutional rights for groups deemed unpopular or subject to prejudice. The court has adopted rules that would maximize the amount of racial discrimination that occurs.