Aaron Dean, Police, And God’s Law

 

By now many people in the Reformed and “theonomic” or “reconstructionist” community are becoming aware that a professing member of our broader worldview is in fact the former police officer involved in a high-profile shooting of an innocent woman. As of at least 2014, he was also a member of Redeemer Church, Fort Worth affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, 9Marks Ministries, and The Gospel Coalition. What needs to be said here involves an important matter about which I and others have been trying to warn our community for some time.

In this article, I hope to highlight that problem once again with attendant sources related to the officer involved, some from other like-minded compatriots of his, and reiterate the lessons we have tried to establish for some years now within our community. Only with a proper focus, understanding, and application to real world issues like police use of force, and other factors, can we prevent further senseless murders and oppressions.

Last Saturday at about 2:30 a.m., a Ft. Worth police officer shot a 28-year old woman through the window of her own home. Responding to a “welfare check” call, his body cam footage shows that he quietly crept around the back of her home in darkness, unlatched her gate, then spied her through her window. He immediately yelled, “Put your hands up! Show me your hands!” and then fired immediately as he finished shouting the command.

Not only did he give no time to comply with his warning before shooting, he had never even announced himself as police. Indeed, he had never even announced his presence at all.

The young woman, Atatiana Jefferson, died from the shot in front of her 8 year old nephew1.

Following the shooting, the officer has since resigned, and has now been charged with murder, but is out on bail.

This morning, it came to our attention that the former officer, Aaron Dean, is a professing Christian, Reconstructionist, and theonomist. This reality highlights a crucial argument taking place about how we understand the principles of biblical law.

For years now, since The Bounds of Love, I have argued that much of what passes as “God’s law” among many professed adherents is less of a biblical position and more of an authoritarian value system that uses the language of the Bible to justify itself to many Christians. Many wish to defend older traditions or “the good old days” and are drawn to the idea that “God’s standards” should be the “law of the land,” but without clear definitions, or with a willingness to overlook the fact that crucial limits do not exist among modern police in several ways. This problem is coupled with a gloss on Romans 13 in which the civil government is God’s specially-ordained servant for ridding evil from the land.

When, however, power is not greatly limited, controlled, and especially held to a higher standard of accountability, tyranny will inevitably ensue. This is nowhere more visible in American history and today than with various administrative agencies run amok, as well as police power. Not only did I warn of this in my books on the Bible, but The Problem of Slavery in Christian America made clear just how we justified the growth of certain police powers under the old racist system.

Unfortunately, however, many people, young men especially, who have such ideas and a zeal for their advancement, can be drawn to the use of power to see them advanced. The authoritarian side of the “God’s law” argument presents just such a worldview, and it inevitably draws people who covet power, and even sometimes who openly defend uses of special powers and entitlements, especially by police.

Opposed to this authoritarian ethic, many of us have consistently objected to special privileges for police, special immunity laws for government agents, the system of protections and defenses which police so often enjoy, and we have consistently called for relevant criminal justice reforms. For this, we have routinely been slandered as “cop haters,” “anti-police,” “anarchists,” “leftists,” and more. Nevertheless, we maintain that we are correct, and are now proven correct once again.

Such an unbiblical system of power is not sanctified because zealous Christians with “God’s law” on their lips enter the system and pretend to serve God in the use of unbiblical power. Instead, such a system perverts otherwise good individuals and empowers them to behave in evil ways. In worse scenarios, misguided and overly zealous individuals enter such a system with visions of power already in their hearts, and then the two combine to make for something predictably worse.

Those who ignored our warnings that something bad will result from the exercise of the current police law system, especially with the zeal that they are specially-entitled servants of God in doing so, can now see that what we predicted has come true, again, but now hitting closer to home.

It has now become clear that not only is Mr. Dean a member of the more authoritarian thought-tradition, but he has in the past taken an aggressive lead in defending the patterns of dangerous law I and others have condemned, and against which we have warned for many years now.

We have discovered multiple screenshots of discussions and arguments in which Mr. Dean engaged along these lines, both under his name and also under the name “Aaron York” (York is his middle name). This account has since been deactivated but his comments were preserved. These are all disclosed below. Ironically, it seems that even when he did approximate biblical limits on the use of power or force, he certainly did not hold himself to it. As can be seen, Mr. Dean was repeatedly warned and confronted by other theonomist, Christian reconstructionists in the forum who are typically well aware of the dangers of police brutality and unchecked power, but the message doesn’t appear to be getting through to Mr. Dean.

According to biblical law, no one is allowed to trespass on someone else’s property, let alone then allege to “feel threatened” or “perceive a threat,” and then kill that person. The trespasser is in that case a murderer. Mr. Dean’s actions were not a legitimate case of self-defense. Under biblical law, Atatiana, was in her own domain and could rightly have used lethal force against him as a trespassing intruder who also brandished a weapon at her at night.

The Bible does allow for self-defense, even lethal force in some cases, but certain objective measures need to be met: is your domicile invaded at night? Did you witness someone pointing a deadly weapon at you? Did the person utter death threats against you? Has the person begun attacking you? And so on. Merely claiming to be “in fear for your life” does not meet the standard, especially when you enter someone else’s property or home. The reported reckless actions of Mr. Dean do not meet any of the standards. Not being able to see someone’s hands alone is not enough reason to claim reasonable fear for one’s life authorizing the use of lethal force.

Biblical law places such high regard on human life that even the owner of an ox which has been known to gore in the past can be executed for not taking proper measures should the ox kill again. There is a requirement to avoid reckless endangerment of the lives of other human beings, and a full liability for any consequences when doing so.

Further, according to biblical law, all laws for trespass, privacy, false witness, liability, theft, search and seizure, and use of force, especially lethal force, must apply to everyone equally. This includes police. Police officers, departments, agencies, and prosecutors should not get special privileges in these regards—with the very limited exceptions when they are serving a properly issued warrant from a court, or if they witness a public crime.

In Aaron York Dean’s case, the violations of such principles are multiple and clear. But such violations are legion throughout our society, every day. Police should be thoroughly reformed to be more decentralized, not a standing force, not on constant patrol, and better trained to prevent such trigger-happy responses, and held strictly accountable when they do, or when they commit any other offenses.

Let us be clear. To violate God’s laws in ways that overly-empower civil government agents and allow tyrannies is to create an idol out of state power. It is statist idolatry. Idolatries always have consequences, and idolatries of civil government power often have consequences that result in the death of innocent people.

This has been at the heart of the debate between those who wish to limit government power by biblical standards, and those who wrongly claim that theonomy or God’s law justifies contemporary police standards and behavior. We now see the fruit of that mistaken claim in the actions of one such zealous young man who believed it.

When people reject the true ways of God, they end up imposing their own authoritarianism, and this almost always falls upon other people. This already-dangerous prospect is worsened when their own fears and sins, entitlement, sense of superiority, or perhaps cowardice cloud their judgments and actions. Tragedies result. This is true in families, churches, private organizations, business, corporations, and in civil government.

God’s law protects life, liberty, and property. Biblical law especially upholds such protections for the weak, poor, minority, and immigrants—those least able to defend themselves. When law enforcement is not bound by the limits of God’s law, it will hurt these first and most; but in the long run it will endanger us all as well.

Biblical law calls for restitution and justice. Justice for the victims in this case must be made the priority. We empathize with the family and friends in the tragic murder of Atatiana. Our prayers, as well as our best effort with awareness, education, and help go out as well. We further mourn the tragedy and devastation wrought in a Christian community as bad doctrine and values lead to senseless violence and death, especially in the black community which experiences this at an alarmingly higher rate. And although we strongly condemn the actions and the views of Mr. Dean, we pray for him and his family. Though our sympathies are primarily with the unrighteously slain and we desire for justice to be had, we also pray that Mr. Dean sees his sin as what it is and seeks repentance in Christ. We pray fervently that justice be done, that the conviction and sentence will be a deterrent to any further injustices, and will provoke necessary, substantial, and permanent reforms in police power.


Mr. Dean (Aaron York - also addressed as “Aaron Dean”) responds to a question posted in an online forum which conveys his perspective regarding when the use of force is justified according to biblical law. Dean shows some level of understanding of biblical principles but also doesn’t grasp important details, such as the fact that self defense provisions aren’t for trespassing intruders. All comments by Mr. Dean show his name. Click on the images to enlarge the view.


Next we see Mr. Dean being confronted by theonomist, Christian reconstructionists in an online forum regarding his views on the policing in America. Dean is warned by Christian reconstructionists for engaging in statist idolatry with regard to his views on policing.


In this exchange, Mr. Dean reveals that he thinks there are circumstances where firing upon someone who is running away is not murder. In a comment, he refers to the shooting of Walter Scott where a police officer shot a man in the back who was running away. Dean concludes that this was a murder unless the officer “thought the guy still had a tazer and thus thought himself in danger”. This also displays belief in a principle that an officer merely thinking “himself in danger” means that police are justified in using lethal force.


In another comment, Mr. Dean responds to the objections of a Christian reconstructionist expressing concerns about the actions of an officer in this video where the officer is plainly shown to be walking up to the scene of an accident and firing two rounds into the body of a man attempting to get out of the wreckage. Mr. Dean’s assessment is that the worst this officer could be convicted of is “gross negligence”. For Mr. Dean, despite the video, intentionality can’t be proven as long as the officer claims it was an accident, and therefore attempted murder or even aggravated assault charges shouldn’t be made.

We will continue to follow this ordeal as events unfold.


[1] According to the subsequent warrant for the police officer, a forensic investigator interviewed Ms. Jefferson’s 8 year old nephew who witnessed the shooting and said that his Aunt had pulled a gun from her purse and pointed it “towards the window”. Interim Police Chief Ed Kraus said at a news conference Tuesday that it “makes sense that she would have a gun if she felt that she was being threatened or there was someone in the backyard.” The Jefferson family lawyer stated “It’s only appropriate that Ms. Jefferson would have a gun,” "When you think there’s someone prowling around in the back at 2 in the morning, you may need to arm yourself. That person could have a gun.”