[Puffer Fish]

I was reading an interesting case about Jasmine Hartin, who shot (supposedly accidentally) a police officer in the head.
She is in long-term relationship with Andrew Ashcroft, who she has two children with. Andrew's father is British billionaire Lord Michael Ashcroft. Andrew was unveiling his new luxury hotel when the incident happened, in the country of Belize.

Hartin allegedly invited the officer, who was a friend, over to her apartment for a drink to discuss her personal security. They walked to a nearby dock, after the 10:00 p.m. curfew hours.

What happened next is unclear.

Security guards came running after hearing a single gun shot and found Hartin on a pier. She had what appeared to be blood on her arms and on her clothing.
She initially refused to speak to police without a lawyer.

Who is Jasmine Hartin? Daughter-in-law of billionaire Tory donor accused of killing police officer in Belize | The Independent
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 57795.html

There does not appear to be any evidence of motivation for the killing. The woman claims it was an accident. She says she offered him a massage for his shoulder pain. Mr Jemmott (the police officer) put down his gun and then the gun accidentally discharged when she was handing it back to him, shooting him in the head and killing him. The body of the police officer was found in the water.

It's possible she may have been drinking too much and that could have contributed to the accident.
It's also possible there could have been some reason she wanted to kill him. Maybe she had an affair with him and she was worried he was going to tell her wealthy long-term partner. Or maybe he had tried to make sexual advances on her.

So first I want you to stop and think for a while, about how this case should have been handled by authorities.

If you're wondering how authorities did react, she was initially arrested and denied bail, and eventually pleaded guilty to "manslaughter by negligence". Part of the reason she pleaded guilty was likely because the judge insinuated to her in the courtroom that if she pled guilty she would be unlikely to serve any additional prison time.

from the article:
*****
The Belizean courthouse heard that the precedent in the case of a guilty plea for the offence was a non-custodial sentence including a fine.

Judge Ricardo Sandcroft said he was unlikely to "veer away" from the existing precedent but had previously warned Hartin in an earlier hearing that he was "not bound" to it.

She is due to return to the same court on May 31 for a sentencing hearing after the judge receives a socio-economic report which will be used to determine the amount of the fine.​

Canadian socialite Jasmine Hartin pleads guilty to manslaughter, The Telegraph, Colin Maximin, April 2023
*****

This is yet another example of why people plead guilty, very common in the legal system. Not just in Belize but in the U.K. and U.S. She was actually told if she pleaded guilty there would probably be no prison time (although no guarantees).

[pugsville]

I was reading an interesting case about Jasmine Hartin, who shot (supposedly accidentally) a police officer in the head.
She is in long-term relationship with Andrew Ashcroft, who she has two children with. Andrew's father is British billionaire Lord Michael Ashcroft. Andrew was unveiling his new luxury hotel when the incident happened, in the country of Belize.

Hartin allegedly invited the officer, who was a friend, over to her apartment for a drink to discuss her personal security. They walked to a nearby dock, after the 10:00 p.m. curfew hours.

What happened next is unclear.

Security guards came running after hearing a single gun shot and found Hartin on a pier. She had what appeared to be blood on her arms and on her clothing.
She initially refused to speak to police without a lawyer.

Who is Jasmine Hartin? Daughter-in-law of billionaire Tory donor accused of killing police officer in Belize | The Independent
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 57795.html

There does not appear to be any evidence of motivation for the killing. The woman claims it was an accident. She says she offered him a massage for his shoulder pain. Mr Jemmott (the police officer) put down his gun and then the gun accidentally discharged when she was handing it back to him, shooting him in the head and killing him. The body of the police officer was found in the water.

It's possible she may have been drinking too much and that could have contributed to the accident.
It's also possible there could have been some reason she wanted to kill him. Maybe she had an affair with him and she was worried he was going to tell her wealthy long-term partner. Or maybe he had tried to make sexual advances on her.

So first I want you to stop and think for a while, about how this case should have been handled by authorities.

If you're wondering how authorities did react, she was initially arrested and denied bail, and eventually pleaded guilty to "manslaughter by negligence". Part of the reason she pleaded guilty was likely because the judge insinuated to her in the courtroom that if she pled guilty she would be unlikely to serve any additional prison time.

from the article:
*****
The Belizean courthouse heard that the precedent in the case of a guilty plea for the offence was a non-custodial sentence including a fine.

Judge Ricardo Sandcroft said he was unlikely to "veer away" from the existing precedent but had previously warned Hartin in an earlier hearing that he was "not bound" to it.

She is due to return to the same court on May 31 for a sentencing hearing after the judge receives a socio-economic report which will be used to determine the amount of the fine.​

Canadian socialite Jasmine Hartin pleads guilty to manslaughter, The Telegraph, Colin Maximin, April 2023
*****

This is yet another example of why people plead guilty, very common in the legal system. Not just in Belize but in the U.K. and U.S. She was actually told if she pleaded guilty there would probably be no prison time (although no guarantees).

Some vague newspaper report. Really making judgements off something as flimsy as this is pointless

[Puffer Fish]

Some vague newspaper report. Really making judgements off something as flimsy as this is pointless

Okay then. Treat this as a hypothetical. If this were ALL the evidence that were available, and you were given the power to decide what should be done, how would you handle this type of situation?

There's a lot of people who are dumb and stupid and think all the necessary evidence will be handed to them on a silver platter. That judges and juries never have to use guesswork or use their brains to try to figure out situations when they do not know for sure what happened.
Well sorry, life often doesn't work like that.

[Godstud]

They have to go by what is reasonable, and this story sounds incredibly far-fetched. It sounds like complete BS.

[AFAIK]

Manslaughter sounds reasonable. She admitted she was holding the gun when it spontaneously aimed itself at a man's head and discharged.

Gun safety rules are pretty clear;

- Every gun is always loaded and ready to kill.
-Never point a gun at something you don't want to kill.

[Puffer Fish]

They have to go by what is reasonable, and this story sounds incredibly far-fetched. It sounds like complete BS.

Well, the media is reporting it. Multiple media sources. You can go look them up if you want to.
I suspect the reason it seems "far-fetched" to you is because it does not conform to your simple version of reality that you imagine to exist.

So I guess in your mind, if something "doesn't make sense", or conform to your beliefs about how the world works, it's "out of sight, out of mind".

[Puffer Fish]

She admitted she was holding the gun when it spontaneously aimed itself at a man's head and discharged.

The real question was, was it an accident?
Everything hinges on that. That's going to make a huge difference how this case is treated.

And also, presuming it was an accident, how much was due to carelessness and intentional recklessness. Something we cannot know for sure, so have to guess at.

I also don't like the idea of punishing individuals only because they admitted to doing something.
The only reason she (presumably after some time and consulting with her lawyer) said it was an accident was because if she doesn't say that, they're going to assume it was intentional murder.

I'm not at all suggesting this is a realistic possibility, but suppose just for the sake of argument that something completely different happened that led to this situation, that this woman didn't shoot the gun, but now she is just lying about accidentally shooting him because she knows that is the only version of the story everyone else will be likely to believe, and she's afraid if she doesn't tell that story that she will be punished for intentional murder.

Or another scenario, she could have shot in self defense, but could not explain the real reason leading up to that situation without revealing she had been cheating on her husband, and besides people would be reluctant to believe it had been self defense, so it made more logical sense to claim it was accidental.

[Pants-of-dog]

While she should be punished for killing a Latino, the fact that it was a cop should reduce the crime significantly.

[Puffer Fish]

While she should be punished for killing a Latino, the fact that it was a cop should reduce the crime significantly.

The police officer was Black. (Not entirely black, but definitely had some African ancestry)

I suspect that woman may have been having a fling with that officer, that she wanted some big black **** .

Whether or not it was true, I'm sure that's the first thing her partner suspected when the information came out. If you read more into the details of that story, it's interesting that the woman had a hard time finding someone to post $30,000 bail for her. (After the authorities figured out that there was inadequate evidence for murder and decided they were going to treat it as negligent manslaughter) This woman's partner, Andrew Ashcroft, has plenty of money. He could have easily put up the bail. But it looks like he didn't.

This woman was actually sent back to jail a little bit after she had been released on bail because another of her male friends (Frank Habet) who had put up the bail money was afraid she might try to flee, and wanted to take back his money.

[Godstud]

The police officer was Black. (Not entirely black, but definitely had some African ancestry)

Not every black person is from Africa. Get a clue.

The rest of your comments are also borderline racist... You should try to avoid that as it detracts from your "argument", particularly when you use stereotypes.

Courts look at evidence and what can be proven, so you making a big fuss is irrelevant. I find that the entire story sounds like a big fat unbelievable lie.

Have you considered that she might actually be very very guilty?

[Puffer Fish]

Courts look at evidence and what can be proven, so you making a big fuss is irrelevant.

Lots of things and almost anything can be part of the overall "evidence".
I took a look at the picture of the victim, and a look at the picture of the woman, and from what I know about the dynamics between white women and black men, it is not difficult to imagine that woman may have been having a liaison with that police officer. Probably mainly sexual.

There are few facts that can actually be proven in this case, so a lot of guesswork is involved. That IS how the court system works, especially in a case like this where it could be a murder.

(I would hope of course we could try to look at probabilities and use logic)

Have you considered that she might actually be very very guilty?

What? That's what I've been saying. That's the point of this thread.
My post is all about considering the possibility that she could have committed murder.

I find that the entire story sounds like a big fat unbelievable lie.

Why is that? Shall I assume you can't be bothered to read the articles in the links?
You can easily look up multiple media sources that have reported this story.

Tell us, Godstud, what is it specifically about this (real life actual) story that you don't like?

[Godstud]

I took a look at the picture of the victim, and a look at the picture of the woman, and from what I know about the dynamics between white women and black men, it is not difficult to imagine that woman may have been having a liaison with that police officer. Probably mainly sexual.

Opinion.

My post is all about considering the possibility that she could have committed murder.

I think she could have as well. What you've said and your OP, however, gives the impression that there is lack of evidence, and that you are defending said person. That is the impression I have gotten from what you have stated.

Tell us, Godstud, what is it specifically about this (real life actual) story that you don't like?

I don't specifically dislike anything, except the narrative you push, involving racist stereotypes being a factor.

[Pants-of-dog]

The police officer was Black. (Not entirely black, but definitely had some African ancestry)

I suspect that woman may have been having a fling with that officer, that she wanted some big black **** .

Whether or not it was true, I'm sure that's the first thing her partner suspected when the information came out. If you read more into the details of that story, it's interesting that the woman had a hard time finding someone to post $30,000 bail for her. (After the authorities figured out that there was inadequate evidence for murder and decided they were going to treat it as negligent manslaughter) This woman's partner, Andrew Ashcroft, has plenty of money. He could have easily put up the bail. But it looks like he didn't.

This woman was actually sent back to jail a little bit after she had been released on bail because another of her male friends (Frank Habet) who had put up the bail money was afraid she might try to flee, and wanted to take back his money.

Maybe.

But anyone who kills a cop is doing society a favour.

Also, Latino is not a race. People can be Black and Latino.

[Godstud]

But anyone who kills a cop is doing society a favour.

That's a pretty stupid and horrid thing to say. Most police officers do their jobs well, and without incident.

When you're in trouble the first people you call are the police.

[Pants-of-dog]

I was joking, but since you decided to take the bait:

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local- ... n-the-head

[late]

Sigh.

Newspapers often get stories wrong. Appearances often fail to withstand scrutiny. No system is perfect, but unless you plan on moving to a cave, you dance with what ya got...

Or to put it slightly differently, threads like this are a waste of time.

[Godstud]

I am aware of these incidents @Pants-of-dog , but they are far from common. They are the exception.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Godstud

A lot of white people think police brutality and killings are the exception.

Anyway, if we assume that the young socialite and the dead cop were intimately involved, we need to also address the fact that cops are disproportionately over represented when it comes to abusing their spouses and girlfriends. A study from 1991 found 40% of cops had hit their Ives or kids in the last six months. More modern surveys have found less, but still higher than the gender population.

So, there is a reasonable probability that this was self-defence.

[Godstud]

A lot of white people think police brutality and killings are the exception

That's not an argument. It's a dismissal based on the colour of my skin(See Racism). You might as well have just said, "You can't have an opinion because you're white.".

Newsflash! You're a white male, too!!! Are you sure you can speak on this, or are you "Allied" to the cause and have gotten permission?


If police brutality and killings were not the exception, it would be in the news daily, and it's not, despite police doing their jobs 24/7, 365 days a year.

A study from 1991 found 40% of cops had hit their Ives or kids in the last six months. More modern surveys have found less, but still higher than the gender population.

Show me the study and then tell me how a study from over 30 years ago is applicable, today.


As for the sources of this, I found information on how the surveys were done, and it was a small regional sample size, done in Arizona in 91 and 92.

Johnson explains she surveyed 728 officers and 479 police spouses in “two East Coast police departments (moderate to large in size)”. She says the sample was drawn in 1983, so presumably the survey was conducted in that year. There is no information on response rates nor how officers were selected, nor how they were invited to participate.

They surveyed 385 male officers, 40 female officers, and 115 female spouses who were apparently attending in-service training sessions and law enforcement conferences “in a southwestern state” (presumably Arizona; Neidig’s co-authors Harold Russell and Albert Seng’s institutional affiliation was listed as the Tuscon police department).
https://sites.temple.edu/klugman/2020/0 ... -violence/

So, there is a reasonable probability that this was self-defence.

No. There is no reasonable probability of that. You imply that the threat of violence exists with every police encounter and that's simply unsubstantiated hyperbole.

[Pants-of-dog]

That's not an argument. It's a dismissal based on the colour of my skin(See Racism). You might as well have just said, "You can't have an opinion because you're white.".

Newsflash! You're a white male, too!!! Are you sure you can speak on this, or are you "Allied" to the cause and have gotten permission?

I am not dismissing your argument for one simple reason: you did not make one. You simply asserted, without any support, that police brutality is the exception and not the norm.

Since you had opened the door for unsupported assertions, I thought I might as well make one too.

Except there is actually evidence for a racial discrepancy when it comes to approval if law enforcement and their use of force, as per my claim.

If police brutality and killings were not the exception, it would be in the news daily, and it's not, despite police doing their jobs 24/7, 365 days a year.

It is in the news daily.

Here is the latest from Edmonton, a story written yesterday and updated today:
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2023/04/2 ... ent-arrest

Show me the study and then tell me how a study from over 30 years ago is applicable, today.

No. If your only rebuttal is "tutor me for free", I shall pass.

Instead, I will assume you concede that cops do beat their wives more than most people as there is no reason to believe that things have changed in the last thirty years.

As for the sources of this, I found information on how the surveys were done, and it was a small regional sample size, done in Arizona in 91 and 92.

Johnson explains she surveyed 728 officers and 479 police spouses in “two East Coast police departments (moderate to large in size)”. She says the sample was drawn in 1983, so presumably the survey was conducted in that year. There is no information on response rates nor how officers were selected, nor how they were invited to participate.

They surveyed 385 male officers, 40 female officers, and 115 female spouses who were apparently attending in-service training sessions and law enforcement conferences “in a southwestern state” (presumably Arizona; Neidig’s co-authors Harold Russell and Albert Seng’s institutional affiliation was listed as the Tuscon police department).
https://sites.temple.edu/klugman/2020/0 ... -violence/

They seem to have surveyed over 1700 people. How is that a small sample size?

No. There is no reasonable probability of that. You imply that the threat of violence exists with every police encounter and that's simply unsubstantiated hyperbole.

Yes, cops can (and need to be able to) threaten force as part of their duties. This is how they enforce laws. This is how law enforcement works.

Are you seriously arguing that cops cannot use force at their discretion?