“I Don’t Like Barriers”: New York Woman’s Podcast Could Be Weighed In Trial Of Killing Of NYPD Officer

An arrest in the death of NYPD officer Anastasio Tsakos could raise some challenging evidentiary questions in the trial of Jessica Beauvais, 32. Before Beauvais ran over Tsakos, she posted a podcast that not only showed her drinking but signing off with “F**K Police.” The admissibility of that podcast evidence is likely to be the subject of a motion by the defense before any trial.

Tsakos was directing traffic away from a fatal accident on a freeway in Queens around 2 a.m. when he was hit by a 2013 Volkswagen. The driver fled the scene and Tsakos later died. When she was arrested, Beauvais’ blood alcohol level was 0.159%, way above the legal limit of 0.08%. There are also reports that she fought with police when being put into custody.

According to media reports, she jumped a curb and then put her car in reverse and rammed a police car twice. After they had her in custody, she is captured on body-worn camera saying “What did I do?” Court documents also quote her as saying

“I smoke weed regularly. I drank two glasses of wine earlier today and then dropped my son off in Hempstead. I smoked a joint last night before my podcast that I did in Brooklyn; the podcast was from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. I brought the bottle of wine I had with me to the podcast. I had two shots of 1800 patron tequila. When I left, I didn’t know where I was going so I used my GPS. I made a left turn and a right turn and ended up at a gas station where the cops stopped me. I don’t know why they stopped me, speeding I guess. I did hear a thump, so I knew I hit something but I didn’t see what it was.”

Beauvais appeared to confess to running over Tsakos as she was led away in handcuffs.  She told reporters “I am sorry that I hit him and that he’s dead. I didn’t mean to. I’m sorry!”  When asked about what she would say to his family, including his 6-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old son, Tsakos said “I didn’t mean to, I’m sorry. I was coming from the studio. I do a podcast.”

That podcast — and that statement — are likely to feature greatly in any trial.  The admission may avoid an evidentiary fight by prompting a plea agreement. However, if she goes to a trial, the defense is likely to argue that the podcast’s evidentiary value is outweighed by its prejudicial impact.

In the podcast, Beauvais is seen smoking and reportedly taking shots of Vodka while playing N.W.A.’s  “F**k tha Police.”  The accident occurred some time later but the consumption of the alcohol would be admissible if the time frame is close enough. The Daily Mail reported that the podcast on Facebook Live occurred just hours before the fatal crash.

It is the anti-police rhetoric that would be more challenging.  I would argue that this was protected political speech and that its admission would be highly prejudicial in such a case. There is no evidence that this was an intentional act.

Beauvais was voicing her anger over the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin in which he was convicted in the death of George Floyd.  Lines like the following would likely inflame the jury: “We can fight the police too. If you’re going to shoot me, get it over with. What I’m saying you’re not going to try me while I’m still breathing. Like N.W.A say about the police—if you’re going to kill me, at least I get to take someone with me. I’m one of those people. If I’m going to go, someone is coming.”

She also declared:

“Why do you need a weapon to do your job,” she asks. “If you were afraid for your life, go be a secretary at Walmart. Do us all the favor. Go open up a daycare. But please stop hitting us with the (expletive) excuse that you felt threatened about something…

I don’t like barriers. That’s why I don’t like working. And I don’t like rules…

We are not afraid of the police. Like those songs, fuck the police. We want you to know that we have no idea about you, your mother, your children, your wife. You are nobody. You are not for us: insecticides, cockroaches, infestations.

They love cockroaches. Nobody asks about you. It’s just boring to watch. Good, bad or indifferent. Honestly.”

There is ample evidence against Beauvais and, in addition to her admission, she was driving on a suspended driver’s license at the time of the crash, police said. According to media reports, her license has been suspended 14 times and she has been cited for multiple driving violations.  Her charges include two counts of vehicular manslaughter and DWI. She faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted.

Once again, the expectation is that her admissions will leave only a plea as a viable option.  In such a case, the full record, including the podcast, is likely to be before a judge during sentencing though the court will often follow the recommendations of prosecutors in a plea agreement.

 

 

39 thoughts on ““I Don’t Like Barriers”: New York Woman’s Podcast Could Be Weighed In Trial Of Killing Of NYPD Officer”

  1. Her license has been suspended 14 times? And she’s still driving, even without a license/ This person should have been put in jail long ago. If the courts had done their job, maybe an innocent cop would still be alive.

  2. Well, a perfect example of licentiousness and misery brought about by following the teachings of the Left. She oughta get enough time so that she’ll never infect her young son with her “philosophy.” She’s human trash and going where trash belongs.

  3. We are waiting for the rioting by white people to start because a black person has killed another white person. What! No money in it for the race baiters?

  4. She has a son? Poor kid doesn’t have a chance in the world. People like this lady should be persuaded not to reproduce. Wonder where the father is………..even wonder if there is one?

  5. You say there is no evidence of intent. Isn’t the point that the recording provides such evidence? Not perhaps of premeditation but of a predisposition or animus.

  6. Her vehicle was being mobbed by police officers, and she had no means to escape their assault but to use her vehicle as a high-mass deadly weapon. Is that what happened?

  7. What is “prejudicial” about admitting the very words of the woman? Admit the words of the person charged – whether to prove specific intent or reckless disregard in mowing down a member of law enforcement whom she admittedly despises. Should we expect to hear the defense argue that because she is of African-American heritage she is permitted to use such words, but not accept responsibility for them? because of her heritage?
    Whoever her “child”is and whatever the age, she/he will be better off with this “parent” in jail.

  8. Karen S: “Driving impaired is one of the most entitled, selfish behaviors possible“

    Just like refusing to wear a face make to prevent potentially infecting someone.

    1. “Just like refusing to wear a face make to prevent potentially infecting someone.” There are laws against drunk driving.

      There are indeed instances of refusing to wear a mask that I consider callous. For instance, when Chris Cuomo had Covid and went to the gym and worked out, or when he was caught in public without a mask.

      However, forcing people to wear a mask when they’ve been vaccinated, when they’ve already had Covid-19, when they are outside, or when they are not closer to 6 feet from people is not supported by the science. Nor is forcing people who have recovered from Covid-19 to get vaccinated. Making a blanket statement on mask wearing to compare with drunk driving is a false equivalence. It would have to be a very specific example, such as being diagnosed with Covid-19, and then going to visit their grandmother and uncle recovering from heart surgery, while not wearing a mask. Or having Covid and being the Typhoid Mary at a wedding.

      I’ve gone through Florida’s mask guidelines, and it appears that masks were required in that state only when social distancing was not possible. That’s both reasonable, and science based, and a better approach than CA and some other states. You didn’t see police officers arresting families on outdoor playgrounds for not wearing a mask…by themselves and outdoors.

      Countries that did intense contact tracing did not require masking to the degree the US did.

      I have personally known people who seem to be trying to get Covid on purpose. They flew out of state to go to amusement parks, got together with as many people as possible, attended BLM crowded events, and then they came back and got their families sick. I knew one person whose daughter attended a BLM protest and then got everyone in the house sick with Covid. It caused a lot of hardship for his business.

      There is absolutely thoughtless, entitled behavior with Covid. People look at their own risk factors, and don’t connect the dots that they’ll give it to people in a higher risk category. Wearing a mask contains your own infectious particles, to a degree. Wearing a mask won’t protect you if the sick person next to you does not. But you don’t need a mask if you’re far away from someone, especially when outside.

      One of the problems is that those with low risk factors experienced mild Covid symptoms. They may have spread it before they had symptoms, or if they thought it was allergies.

      What’s the impetus for people to get vaccinated if they don’t get more freedom and relief? If you get vaccinated, but you still have to wear a mask for hours at a time, then what’s the point? That’s not good public policy.

      1. Karen, I agree with you nearly 100%. But Fox News and the Far Right have turned mask wearing into a culture war. Some people resisted wearing seatbelts at first and others being forced to smoke outside public buildings. Fortunately, the majority, unlike Trump, are considerate of the welfare of others.

        1. Jeff, saying that Fox News has turned the mask issue into a political one is laughable from someone who equates drunk driving with not wearing a mask. Simple question there Jeff…since not wearing a mask is the same as driving drunk do you favor jailing people for non-compliance with mask rules? How about repeat offenders of mask avoidance? See how easy it is to destroy your argument?

          Please allow me to add that I am a serious mask wearer and I find myself getting upset when I see folks in the supermarket without a mask, especially prior to the vaccines. But when people like Jeff and Dr. Fauci claim that kids need to wear masks OUTDOORS while running around it is not the right that is making this apolitical issue, it is the left.

              1. Aninny:

                But it’s maskless idiocy or as most folks call it “being free.” Tyrants and their enablers always think free people are idiots. Makes it sweeter when the scum running from them. You wanna live in chains of your own making have at it.

      2. There are indeed instances of refusing to wear a mask that I consider callous. For instance, when Chris Cuomo had Covid and went to the gym and worked out, or when he was caught in public without a mask.

        The Greenhouse Effect in closed spaces. Also, fecal transmission is the probable mode in asymptomatic individuals.

    2. Accounting for chance and other factors, the clinical trials do not match intuitive (e.g. cargo cult) science.

      Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: a controlled study

      acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817″ rel=”nofollow ugc”>Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers

      Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

      No source control. At best, flip a coin. At worst, increase infections. Anything less than N95 following strict protocol is a progressive risk in vulnerable populations. Even worse, it creates evoutionary pressures in transitioning (e.g. seasonal) populations that sustain transmission and exposure of the most vulnerable. That said, the latest study estimates that nearly 80% of people at risk of infection have preexisiting immunity that mitigates dssease progression. Also, “fat is beautiful” is a comorbidity past, present, and progressive that account for nearly 80% of cases.

      Fat Lives Matter (FLM)

      Close Planned Parent/hood, which is the only institution and practice with excess year over year deaths.

      Baby Lives Matter (BLM)

      1. n.n.

        You might now have been made aware but this blog only permits two hyperlinks per comment. I edited this and another comment so that it would be visible. If in the future you wish for the readership to review more than two links, this may be accomplished through the use of multiple comments of two or fewer links each.

  9. “Detonating” and Gassing White People” – “I don’t like barriers” is this part of 101 CRT?

    1. Yes, CRT theory presumes diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment) that denies individual dignity, individual conscience, intrinsic value, and normalizes color blocs (e.g. people of black), color quotas, and affirmative discrimination (e.g. Jew privilege). One step forward, two steps backward.

        1. It’s the predecessor to White privilege, that was a social justification by a minority to justify diversity, inequity, and exclusion.

  10. CLEARLY THERE WAS NO INTENT AND NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR WOULD BRING CHARGES

    “I am sorry that I hit him and that he’s dead. I didn’t mean to. I’m sorry!”

    – Jessica Beauvais
    _______________

    “Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions,…”

    “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

    – James Comey
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found: Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails). None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail. Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it. While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government. With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

    In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order. Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past. In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here. To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

    As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case. I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

    – James Comey, 2016, Hillary Clinton Personal E-Mail Use (excerpted)

  11. First, how old is her son whom she dropped off at Hempsted while driving drunk and high? She’s only 32. How old could he be? She should also be charged with reckless child endangerment.

    Second, anytime someone drinks, or smokes weed, and drives, they could kill someone. They’re like an unguided missile careening around. No one has the right to operate a vehicle while impaired. Phone a friend. Call a cab. It’s a lot cheaper than going to prison for DUI or God forbid, vehicular manslaughter.

    Driving impaired is one of the most entitled, selfish behaviors possible, second only to her, of course, fighting with police. Isn’t that the politically correct thing to do now during an arrest, fight with the police?

    I’m not so sure her anti-police bigotry was simply a coincidence. She backed up and hit the police car twice. Could it really be just a coincidence that she’d fantasized, that very night, about killing cops?

    If someone had a KKK broadcast, and then went out and hit a black man’s car twice, hit the black man, and then dragged him to his death, that racist ideology would absolutely come forth as a possible motive.

  12. An accident that has ruined more than a few lives. She may be reckless and dangerous behind the wheel, but it looks like an accident and not an on purpose. Let this run its course and justice prevail. No reason to turn this into a national media sensation.

    1. It might very well have been just another DUI accident. But I haven’t seen the video of the encounter. Could she have been so impaired that she hit the police car twice, hit the cop, and dragged him to death, or was it deliberate, while her inhibitions were down?

      In my mind, it could be either, accident, or on purpose while under the influence and more open to suggestion. Kind of like the man who comes home staggering drunk, gets in a fight, and kills his wife, whom he’d just bagged on all night at the bar.

  13. “the court will often follow the recommendations of prosecutors in a plea agreement.”
    **
    She’s black. The prosecutor will recommend community service as a driving instructor.

    1. She’s liberal, per chance progressive, certainly a leftist (i.e. totalitarian) bent, and will be appointed as a tenured professor, or fellow in some diversity, inequity, and exclusion think tank. Baby Lives Matter (BLM)

      1. Where is the accountability for the court officials that allowed this troubled and dangerous individual, based on her prior record, to be out on the streets.

        I am tired of civil servants that retire with guaranteed pensions after serving their time that are destroying our society. Their actions have removed deterrence from the board.

Leave a Reply