Dallas Officer Kills Man After Walking Into Wrong Apartment: Police

a reply to: howtonhawky

And I think you are giving them credit for much more integrity than they have.

So far their full story of events are the one the swine perp gave them...verbatim if you trust them, which I do not.
I'd lay money the investigator coached her through her statement.

They also let her out pretty quick.

a reply to: vonclod

If you've been following events in this country,
You'd know that an actual threat isn't necessary for a pig to murder you.
4 magic words: I FEARED FOR MY SAFETY
Wether it was a reasonable fear is irrelevant.
It's all about officer perception and their undeniable right to make it home alive, damn the fact they probably unnecessarily killed or injured someone else that didn't deserve it...they know better than you, lowly peon.
Bulletproof Heroes, Warrior Cops, etc..

They also let her out pretty quick.

She posted bond just as any other person could.

a reply to: roadgravel

$300 000.
An hour after her booking.
Not just any other person could manage that.
One with the full financial backing of their union could, though.
Michael Drejka is being held (or was, can't find any additional information) on $100 000 bail, and the judge posted restrictions on him if he could post it, i.e. surrender all firearms, ankle monitor, no leaving the county.
You think she has those same restrictions?
Doubt it.
She's a paragon of police virtue, so no threat to society as they see it.
Unstable temperament, reckless use of a firearm, and obviously lying to investigators is only an issue if you're little people...

On another note, if I lived in that building I would be petitioning the building management for an immediate eviction.
Someone that stupid, dangerous, and armed, shouldn't be allowed to live a complex with other people.
Unless the name on the front is Cell Block.

a reply to: Shamrock6

While you are looking for a nonsense reason to affect a search warrant for a crime scene, maybe you can conjure up a reason for why the swine's apt. didn't get searched?
She just killed a guy under very suspect circumstances...so you let her go back to her own home for 3 frigging days, no search.
If you think that's not recieving special treatment, you only confirm what I already know...

surrender all firearms, ankle monitor, no leaving the county. You think she has those same restrictions?

She might. I doubt these reporters are going into those details. People bond out a lot.

You make it sound like there has been a trial and she was found not guilty. That day hasn't come.

a reply to: MightyDillHole

Another cop kills an innocent civilian.
This time, in his own apartment that she mistook for her own.

The usual blame game begins with the dead victim, then the officer and then a wide brush against police.

The victim was a real choir boy, educated and working.
So that rules out him.

If he had a record, it would be chalked up as another dead scumbag and it would have never gone viral despite the fact she got the wrong apartment.

From other forums, there are those say she did not wrong in that she reacted as expected to a threat and responded automatically as she was trained to do, without thinking about it.

Those that support this thinking though are actually condemning police training then across the nation, where training dictates it is ok to shoot innocent civilians if you fear for your life no matter what situation you find yourself in.

I thought police existed to protect civilians, not shoot them.

Then, you have the other side where they are attacking the police officer instead where she was not where she should be.

I actually side with those that defend the police officer, because they are actually helping us do away with shoot first and think later policies as this continues.

If we just attack the police officer, they can write it as a one off incident, she gets charged and nothing changes.

There was the Hollywood Incident where a few cops got killed a few years back.
It was from that once incident in just one state, where policy changed across the nation.

When innocents are being killed like this, I think it is also justifiable to completely revamp policy across the nation to protect innocent civilians in their own home.

a reply to: MightyDillHole

I know what it is, don't try pulling that cop "I'm a professional and you are just a lowly uneducated civillian" bull#.

I didn't. I can only go by what you post, and you keep harping on using the officer's statement to support getting a warrant for manslaughter as somehow being a smear job by the Rangers, when the reality is that they used it against her to charge her with manslaughter. That gives the impression that you a) don't know what an affidavit is used for, b) how to read one and parse the meaning of it, and c) know what "public records" means.

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.

Not really. Manslaughter is a second degree felony in Texas. If they wanted to charge her with "the lowest possible thing they could manage" they could have charged her with criminally negligent homicide or deadly conduct with a firearm, both of which are lesser felonies. Texas law requires that a murder charge be supported by intent. Texas manslaughter law requires no intent whatsoever. Nothing so far supports the intent factor that would substantiate a murder charge.

Don't expect to confuse me with someone who will believe anything a cop says...ever.

I'm not confused about what kind of person you are, don't worry.

She was a police officer but was off duty. Not a shooting while on duty.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Texas manslaughter law requires no intent whatsoever.

Serious question...Once she drew her pistol, did she not have intent to use it? This certainly was not premeditated; however, she intended to fire that pistol and her intent in using it was to kill.

a reply to: MightyDillHole

While you are looking for a nonsense reason to affect a search warrant for a crime scene, maybe you can conjure up a reason for why the swine's apt. didn't get searched?

You think searching a crime scene is nonsense? That's pretty shocking. Law enforcement needs a warrant to process a crime scene, and that includes a homicide scene, unless somebody gives consent for the search. If the victim is the only one who can give consent to search the apartment, then law enforcement has to have a warrant to conduct the search. Since they need a warrant, they have to explain why they need a warrant, which means they have to list every thing they're looking for, and what happened to justify the warrant. Since the bulk of what they have to justify their warrant is her story, it goes in the affidavit.

If you think that's not recieving special treatment, you only confirm what I already know...

I suspect that what you "already know" is confirmed in your mind regardless of what anybody has to say, unless what they have to say agrees with what you "already know." I don't know why her apartment wasn't searched. Then again, she gave consent for a blood draw and urine sample to be taken. If she also gave consent for them to search her apartment, then there's no warrant to be found in public records. Did that happen? I don't know, but I don't know that it didn't either. I'm not going to take a lack of information and start crying "conspiracy!" just yet.

What I do know is that her story stinks, and that she's going to have a hard time trying to spin a defense case out of the information that we have. The prosecutor has already said that he's going to go after her as a civilian, rather than going after her as a law enforcement officer. If that turns out to be the case, then she has no legal defense for the shooting at all. Texas' stand your ground law is predicated on the person who shoots as being somewhere that they have a legal reason to be. Somebody else's apartment doesn't fit that. I'm sure her defense team will try to argue from a law enforcement perspective, but she wasn't there to make an arrest and she wasn't in pursuit of a violent criminal. We also know that Jean was some distance away from her when he was shot, rather than at the door like was initially claimed.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

That's going to be one of the more difficult angles to the case for the prosecution, and it's likely a large part of why they went for manslaughter rather than murder. Law enforcement is (generally speaking) allowed to draw their firearm whenever they feel the need to do so and that they can articulate why they did. I don't know what the DPD policy is on it, and that's really what would be important if Guyger tries to mount her defense from a LE perspective rather than a civilian one.

Intent in the legal sense would require that she pulled her piece with the intent of killing Jean. That's why we have the charge of "brandishing a firearm" in most places. It's for when people who aren't law enforcement draw a firearm with no intent to kill somebody but rather to "just scare" them.

This article gives a pretty good explanation of what is and what isn't intent, and the difference between types of intent.

All it takes is one off color remark she has said in the past about black people and you have premeditation.

a reply to: roadgravel

She is guilty.
She shot an unarmed man in his own apt. who was doing nothing wrong.
Even if he attacked her, which under the circumstance he had every right to.
No trial needed for that.
Guilty.

a reply to: Shamrock6
I'm not confused on any of those things.
I have never read anywhere that cops need a search warrant for a crime scene.
That's asinine.

I know your not confused about what kind of person I am.
I'm not a cop, so scum.
Anybody with a lick of sense knows what cops think of regular people.
Now...answer the damn questions.
Why no warrant to search the murderers apt.?
She never gave consent and we know that because no one searched it.
It would be all over the internet if they did.
There is video of her moving out though.
And now, if there is no smear job formulating, what is the purpose of releasing information stating that they found a small amount of marijuana?
Question my personal integrity and lack of willingness to worship your badge all you want, it's you that's showing what you and all your blue costumed brotherhood are all about.
Circle the wagons.
I don't care what the prosecutor said.
They always say that.
Then they lose the case.
Otherwise the murdering pigs that killed Kelly Thomas would be in jail where they belong.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I never said searching a crime scene is nonsense.
I said gettiing a search warrant to do so is.
Nice try twisting my words though...practice for work elsewhere, please.
What I already know is that it took 3 days to arrest her.
I watched the booking video.
I've been treated more harshly when I got in trouble for swearing in school when I was a kid.
Then allowed to bail out in an hour with no conditions.
That smacks of special treatment.
You might not think so because as a cop, you expect to be treated different because your trainers have elevated you to that in your minds...
And don't try to tell me her union isn't behind bailing her out.
She came up with what amounts to the downpayment on a condo in an hour?
Bullshiiiit.
Don't try telling me that's acceptable behaviour either.
It's not.

a reply to: MightyDillHole

No trial needed for that.

We have a system, not vigilante justice. I can't see her walking.

a reply to: MightyDillHole

I'm not confused on any of those things.

Yes, you are.

I have never read anywhere that cops need a search warrant for a crime scene.

Probably why you're confused.

However, recently we have encountered confusion about whether officers need a warrant to process a murder scene. In other words, a homicide has occurred in the suspect’s home and a protective sweep has been conducted revealing no evidence in plain view. Now, the homicide investigators need to get to work and the crime scene needs to be processed. Do the officers need either the suspect’s consent or a search warrant to process the crime scene? You bet. The three main United States Supreme Court cases are summarized below:

Neat little article that explains that for you.

That's asinine.

I'm sorry you feel your 4th Amendment rights are "asinine."

I know your not confused about what kind of person I am. I'm not a cop, so scum.

In addition to making things up and attributing them to other members so that you can find something to attack them about, you seem to have a self-image complex.

Why no warrant to search the murderers apt.?

I already answered that.

And now, if there is no smear job formulating, what is the purpose of releasing information stating that they found a small amount of marijuana?

Who knows? Why'd they release any information at all about it? Why did FoxNews decide to run the headline they did that caused the uproar in the first place? If anybody is smearing Jean, it's FoxNews for crackpot journalism using clickbait headlines.

Question my personal integrity and lack of willingness to worship your badge all you want,

I didn't, just your ability to understand what's being said. But we've already established that you like to make things up and pretend I said them so you can attack me about them.

it's you that's showing what you and all your blue costumed brotherhood are all about.

You mean a basic understanding of law, criminal investigative procedure, and legal terms? I'm glad you can see that.

Circle the wagons.

Again, making things up and pretending I said them. I have no problem stating when I think an officer has done something wrong or is out of line. Just because I have a better than average grasp of legal terms, legal theory, and other areas pertaining to law enforcement and am capable of explaining that doesn't change my opinion on any given incident.

Then they lose the case.

You sure? I only ask because about a month ago, this same prosecutor put another cop in prison for 15 years for an unjustifiable killing.

a reply to: roadgravel

The system is a corrupted #show designed to benefit its enforcers.
Period.
If she gets anymore than a suspended sentence, I'll be shocked.
They will pick a jury of 6 fat housewives and 6 MAGA disciples, all of them scared to death of the "evil" out to get them, each fighting for the chance to lick those boots.
You know the type...people who think the TSA is a necessary and effective agency.
The defense will go on and on about what an effective officer she is, how if the marijuana smoking colored had just done as he was told and acquiesced to her authority he'd still be alive, and that all the inconsistencies in her original statement came from shock and fatigue...
They will let her off because they believe no matter what, cops are heroes.
Bets?

a reply to: MightyDillHole

I never said searching a crime scene is nonsense. I said gettiing a search warrant to do so is.

Because you're confused.

Nice try twisting my words though...practice for work elsewhere, please.

You're right. It was silly of me to presume you understood the 4th Amendment.

You might not think so because as a cop

What I think is special treatment is that she was allowed to turn herself into a facility into an entirely different county. What I don't think is special treatment is investigators waiting until they figured out her story didn't make sense before getting a warrant for her. What I don't think is special treatment is her getting a bond amount six times higher than just about anybody else charged with manslaughter gets in Dallas.

you expect to be treated different because your trainers have elevated you to that in your minds...

Is this what passes for debate and discussion in your mind? Just making things up and pretending the other person said it and thinks it and attacking them over it?

And don't try to tell me her union isn't behind bailing her out.

I didn't.

Don't try telling me that's acceptable behaviour either. It's not.

Literally anybody can post bond for anybody else. Bail is another one of those "asinine" Constitutional rights you keep being upset about all of us having. Surely you don't think only the person arrested should be able to bond themselves out of jail, do you? That would be a pretty big blow to those with low income. So yes, it is entirely acceptable that somebody paid her bond amount to get her out of jail. Who that is? Absolutely irrelevant.

And, as an aside, not that I think you'll pay any attention to what I actually think because you're too busy making things up instead, I'm not a fan of unions in general, and would much rather emergency services unions stick with things like working conditions and pay rather than inserting themselves into every shooting possible. Which, I'll point out again, the local chapter president of the union already said Jean was a fine young man and that Guyger needs to be held accountable.