Dallas Officer Kills Man After Walking Into Wrong Apartment: Police

The Rangers help to remove the claim of bias by the Dallas PD.

What I find as BS in this right now is the family and supporters making claims against the police given the person has been charged and has not been to trial. What do they want that is actual part of reality, not false perception of persecution.

originally posted by: MightyDillHole
a reply to: Shamrock6

If the Rangers think anything about this liars story adds up, they are either completely useless or just as big of liar as she is.
I'm going to go with the second option.

I think the rangers have much more integrity than you want to give them credit for right now.

We are not yet getting there full story of events.

They put her behind bars pretty quick.

a reply to: howtonhawky

And to boot, she shot while facing no actual implied threat

originally posted by: howtonhawky
You make good points but there have been cases where premeditation does not include specific thought of certain persons. Hate crimes due to prejudices can also indicate premeditation.

In some circumstances yes however the PA has to prove it existed in order to support a charge that is based on it.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
You theory has a few holes.

I dont think so but what the hell.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Take the video making the rounds today where an officer is being shot during a routine traffic stop. The perp possibly had no premeditated thought to killing that specific officer yet he likely premeditated the crime by simply driving a vehicle while unlawfully armed.

The "perp" was known to the officer and was on PandP. The moment the officer asked him to step out of the vehicle is when he decided he was going to try and kill the officer. That is based on his situation of being on PandP, a felon in possession of a firearm (a new felony charge and violation of his PandP). He know he was going back to prison the moment she told him to step out. Not only for the possession of a firearm as a felon / on P and P, but it also means his P and P is revoked for whatever charges resulted in it. That means he goes back to prison for the original charge sentences.

In that situation premeditation is not hard to come to based on the situation, the actors involved and the prior history. Secondly in that situation he was shooting at a police officer while in the performance of her duty and fully understood that.

California law for murder is broken down into 2 sections - 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder.
1st degree murder requires the crimes involving premeditation, deliberation or deliberate planning, and intent to kill. If those special sections are not met then it is 2nd degree murder. 1st degree murder in CA is meant for cases that are especially heinous (shocks the conscious).

California law and Texas law are not the same, especially when it comes to law enforcement authority and people on parole / probation. The second thing to consider is you cant compare the 2 situations because they arent the same. I have said this many times - each incident is unique in and of itself and has to be viewed in that manner.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Simply making the decision at some point to kill someone if the event ever comes up can be premeditation.

It can be but again you have to look at totality of circumstances involved. The texas officer returned home and thought some was in her apartment. She took an action that was inconsistent with accepted norms and thats based on her lack of situational awareness.

In her case, based on publicly available info, the choice to shoot only came after several minutes of confusion and yelling. That delay is why it is manslaughter and not murder. The initial intent was to go home at which point, thru her mistake, encountered a person in their own apartment, which she thought was hers. A series of serious and consequential mistakes made by her resulted in the death of an innocent homeowner. Her actions after the fact - calling 911 to report the shooting, remaining on scene waiting for law enforcement / 1st responders. Submitting to a blood draw,. surrendering her duty weapon, voluntarily giving statements in addition to an official report.

Those acts mitigate against a preplanned homicide. If investigators uncover information that challenges those actions then you can go for the higher charge. Until that happens though her actions fall into manslaughter territory.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
By wearing a gun while off duty that can be considered premeditation.

Premeditation for wearing a gun yes. For committing a crime not so much and secondly, exercising a constitutional right is not criminal in and of itself. Premeditation requires a plan that shows a criminal intent from the get go (like being in possession of a firearm while being a convicted felon on parole and probation for your California example).

In all cases the prosecution has to prove intent. They have to show the person planned to take the specific action before it occurred. If you cant show the person planned it then what you do have is a person being negligent in their actions that resulted in someones death - manslaughter.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
As far as shooting someone cause a taser makes them flinch that is kinda lame. It is like making someone stick their hand in a fire then punishing them cause they flinched. It really comes down to the actions that took place before the tazer.

Uhm not quite. Due to the items law enforcement carries on their persons / in their cars a Taser is viewed as a direct lethal threat because it can incapacitate an officer, allowing access to those items / firearms and by extension placing the public at large in danger. In the Taser incident it was several officers present and the suspect still fought them. The officers authority was lawfully established and the actions being taken by law enforcement were consistent with policy and laws. By actively resisting he demonstrated a disregard for the public's and officers safety.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes...

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Anywho i trust the professionals will get to the bottom of this and my opinions are beside the point in many ways. I know that.

Agreed.. I am not seeing anything in the public realm that justifies the officers actions. What I do see is a series of one mistake after another that culminated in the death of an innocent man. I dont think race was a factor either given the report of seeing a dark shadow moving about. It is up their with people screaming racist cop when a cop pulls over a car at 2 oclock in the morning. Its hard enough to see the number of people in a car at the time of night let alone skin color etc.

I think, baring new info, that manslaughter is the charge the grand jury needs to decide on. If they opt not to indict then I expect to see the PA issue a manslaughter charge regardless.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Xcathdra

I agree, my first thought was no way this goes to trial after reading the initial reports on who the victim was, but who knows I have also never tried to get into someone else's apartment or house despite some fairly epic drinking binges. (many years ago)

It is going to come down to what the suspect thinks coupled with her lawyers advice. If she is the arrogant I did nothing wrong type then I see her losing in court.

As for getting into someone elses apartment I agree. I have seen people try to force entry without knowing how to properly kick a door in though. Its dangerous trying to execute a warrant and the breach guys foot goes thru the door and the door still remains closed / locked. General rule of thumb based on other experiences - always check the door knob to see if the door is unlocked.

It is one of the reasons I moved on to larger departments with training standards beyond the academy.

originally posted by: roadgravel
What I find as BS in this right now is the family and supporters making claims against the police given the person has been charged and has not been to trial. What do they want that is actual part of reality, not false perception of persecution.

It is a standard tactic given the lawyer representing them - Mt. Crumb.

The same lawyer who represented Trayvon Martins family in Florida and Michael Browns Family in Ferguson Mo. I noticed he immediately played the race card wit his media release.

While I think his tactics are disgusting he is doing the job he is suppose to do - represent his clients zealously. That can always backfire though, especially when the people he represents are an indirect victim. I also think hes trying to hedge his bets with a grand jury by doing the media play first and doing it loudly to get as much public coverage as possible.

a reply to: Xcathdra

By actively resisting he demonstrated a disregard for the public's and officers safety.

As per tazers.

There is a disconnect between the guidelines and reality.imo

The guidelines do not take into account that being tazed comes along with a natural reflex.

I get what you said but when tazed it is natural reaction to try to stop it. It is not like taking a bullet but more like a cop trying to detain someone by way of knife. People are gonna naturally react by trying to take it away.

a reply to: howtonhawky

I think you misunderstood the circumstances around her previous shooting. The suspect attacked / resisted her and another officer making an arrest. The suspect was able to take her Taser from her in the struggle. She transitioned to her firearm and shot the threat.

The probes on a taser, if they make proper context, forces the subject to seize up for the cycle. A taser that does not have a cartridge attached is used as a drivestun. Touching the tip of a taser with no cartridge does not cause incapacitation. It is classified as pain compliance at that point.

If only one probe hits there is no effect on the subject. That is when you follow up with a drive stun to complete the circuit which will incapacitate the person for the cycle.

I am not sure where you are getting flynch from a taser being deployed though with regards to her previous shooting. My departments guidelines classify a taser being employed against an officer as a deadly force encounter. Only states within the confines of the 9th circuit are required to classify their taser use as one step below deadly force.

The affidavit says Guyger mistook Jean's apartment for hers and that his front door was ajar when she entered. She also told investigators that she shot Jean after he refused her verbal commands. An attorney for Jean's family, Lee Merritt, said at a news conference Monday evening that two independent witnesses have told him they heard knocking on the door in the hallway before the shooting. He said one witness reported hearing a woman's voice saying, "Let me in! Let me in!" Then they heard gunshots, after which one witness said she heard a man's voice say, "Oh my God! Why did you do that?"

abc13.com...

It is strange how her report does not match the initial reports noted in the beginning of this thread nor does it match witness statements.

a reply to: howtonhawky

The witnesses are audio only but I agree their version doesnt support the suspects version. As I said before though witnesses have been known to not get things correct, and we saw that in the michael brown case. Especially when you are only recalling what you heard but did not observe. Without a visual context to go with what was heard it can get weird and context can be off.

The lack of witnesses might also be the reason for manslaughter. Even if her version doesnt add up it will be difficult to prosecute a higher charge without any witnesses. In this case manslaughter can rely solely on the officers statements to carry the charge.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: howtonhawky

I think you misunderstood the circumstances around her previous shooting. The suspect attacked / resisted her and another officer making an arrest. The suspect was able to take her Taser from her in the struggle. She transitioned to her firearm and shot the threat.

The probes on a taser, if they make proper context, forces the subject to seize up for the cycle. A taser that does not have a cartridge attached is used as a drivestun. Touching the tip of a taser with no cartridge does not cause incapacitation. It is classified as pain compliance at that point.

If only one probe hits there is no effect on the subject. That is when you follow up with a drive stun to complete the circuit which will incapacitate the person for the cycle.

I am not sure where you are getting flynch from a taser being deployed though with regards to her previous shooting. My departments guidelines classify a taser being employed against an officer as a deadly force encounter. Only states within the confines of the 9th circuit are required to classify their taser use as one step below deadly force.

Well i was not necessarily referring to her particular incident but also others.

Just speaking in general about tazers and how one does indeed flinch. Perhaps not when they are being tazed but many do cause many people can handle more than others. That creates a place of thought in ones mind that they still have a chance to overcome the advances. Not in all cases but some. Often makes for a messy situation.

As far as her previous case it does not look like it will come into play much for the reasons you stated.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Yeah all my comments about tasers was based solely on her previous shooting. I have been tased a few times (training and accidental during fights) and I have tased others. The only issues I come across is proper probe contact with the subject. A good connection and resistance stops for the 5 seconds (at lest in all of my experiences).

A taser transmit on the same brain frequency used for motor control. Because the taser signal is stronger it overrides / disrupts the bodies signal, resulting in loss of motor control. I have never seen a person handle a solid connect any different from someone else who received a solid connect.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: howtonhawky

The witnesses are audio only but I agree their version doesnt support the suspects version. As I said before though witnesses have been known to not get things correct, and we saw that in the michael brown case. Especially when you are only recalling what you heard but did not observe. Without a visual context to go with what was heard it can get weird and context can be off.

The lack of witnesses might also be the reason for manslaughter. Even if her version doesnt add up it will be difficult to prosecute a higher charge without any witnesses. In this case manslaughter can rely solely on the officers statements to carry the charge.

You should not bring big mike into this... There were proven lies by the police and holder covered up much.imo I could go on all day on that one and i do not want to get you off base here.

The witness reports also are in line with the first reports by media and scanners. Hers do not seem to add up from what i can tell. Really looks like she is in her own reality with her statements.

On top of that not seeing the red door mat and shooting into a open house at silhouettes. Why would he leave the door open in the first place? A question the investigators should answer.

If only there were some type of electronic type locks used so we could see what key card opened the door last or if any other cards were used on the door.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I know what it is, don't try pulling that cop "I'm a professional and you are just a lowly uneducated civillian" bull#.
Clearly the Rangers accepted a story that is complete made up crap in order to charge her with the lowest possible thing they could manage that didn't sound utterly ridiculous.

Don't expect to confuse me with someone who will believe anything a cop says...ever.
My "conspiracy theory" makes more sense than the swine narrative...my implication is anything but ineptness on the Rangers part.
I in fact have every confidence in them spinning a thrilling tale of an unfortunate accident occuring.

The investigation probably isn't over at this time.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Are the lawyers for the swine making any such claims?
Since when do you need a warrant for a crime scene if the search is a standard procedure?
I'll tell you when: When you are trying to piece together a narrative that makes the innocent man you murdered look like he wasn't so innocent, knowing full well there are enough bootlickers out there that will accept letting a cop off for murder if the guy they killed was "undesirable".
The same reason you unethical jackasses will use the phrase "known to police" to make it look like someone was a habitual offender of some sort when it could mean nothing more than a speeding ticket.
Don't tell me it doesn't happen either...I know for a fact that it does.

a reply to: roadgravel

Of course it isn't.
Too many unaswered questions that need to be adequately spun into a defensible position for the swine.
After that, it'll be tax payer defense lawyers looking to twist her way out of this with no charges, reinstatement, back pay, and probably a medal of valour...
With the union rep saying "It was a terrible tragedy for all, and we are pleased that the justice system worked".
PUKE.