Dallas officer kills man after mistaking apartment for her own, police say

[Huckleberry 33068]

Man, still catching up on the thread. Those two pictures show plenty of obvious visual differences between the apartments. There is a clear and direct path from the front door to the balcony(?) door in Guyger's apartment but not in Jean's. It's a far more persuasive argument that the apartment was dark. But there's an issue with that, too. In Jean's apartment the back wall that you are facing as you enter has a door, then wall, then window as you go left to right. Guyger's has door, window, wall. That means that the light pattern you're confronted with when entering your dark apartment (light coming in through the window and the door's window) would have been completely different.

Basically I think those pictures don't help or hurt if I'm on the jury. Sure the general architectural layout was the same but there were plenty of obvious differences if you were paying any sort of attention, too.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Huckleberry

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

The only person who has any idea what they are talking about on this thread is 4th and 5 but I do enjoy everyone else trying to trip him up. 

"Ok, but what if she went into her own apartment and there was a wormhole that took her into her neighbor's apartment, and she also went back in time and he was a dinosaur? If she trapped him in amber and used his DNA to open a theme park, how would that not constitute recklessness under the TPC?" 

[Fuck Tim Beck 3834]

1 minute ago, Hank Scorpio said:

The only person who has any idea what they are talking about on this thread is 4th and 5 but I do enjoy everyone else trying to trip him up. 

"Ok, but what if she went into her own apartment and there was a wormhole that took her into her neighbor's apartment, and she also went back in time and he was a dinosaur? If she trapped him in amber and used his DNA to open a theme park, how would that not constitute recklessness under the TPC?" 

And don't forget sex cop being pissed because he didn't get to fill that skanks wormhole that night 

[hookem17 485]

She had mace/pepper spray on her belt. 

[TXSooner518 2438]

4 minutes ago, hookem17 said:

She had mace/pepper spray on her belt. 

Plus the aforementioned Taser and the police radio. 

[Brisketexan 105257]

1 hour ago, 4th and 5 said:

A manslaughter indictment would read"...recklessly causing the death of an individual, to wit: by cleaning a firearm that was loaded in a room full of schoolchildren, and by causing said firearm to discharge, striking VICTIM and causing VICTIM's death" or something like that 

the recklessness has to go to a specific act of the discharge of the firearm, not going to the wrong apartment, and with no proof of the allegation, it is an acquittal....an incidentally, a double jeopardy bar to the greater offense of murder. 

Man, I gotta tell you.... I just don't get this.  And I say that from a standpoint of logic and as a lifelong gun owner and shooter.

It's reckless to INTENTIONALLY pull the trigger without REASONABLY ascertaining your target.  As a shooter for over 40 years, I know that I have a duty to determine what lies beyond my target.  I have a duty to look where I'm shooting.  So, if I swing on a deer, and do not ascertain what lies beyond my new line of fire, and INTENTIONALLY pull the trigger, sending a bullet downrange into the neighboring property's playscape, killing a kid on the slide, we all know that I face criminal liability for my RECKLESS or NEGLIGENT conduct.

If I think the neighbor's kid rustling through the brush is a deer, and INTENTIONALLY pull the trigger (that is, I'm aiming at the kid, thinking he's something other than he is -- a deer), same liability.

But if I think the neighbor's kid is an intruder, and do not reasonably ascertain that fact, and INTENTIONALLY pull the trigger.....I get off completely.  You can see how this makes no sense.  The act is not just the final culmination of pulling the trigger.  The act is the collective sequence of 1) evaluating the target, 2) deciding to fire, and 3) pulling the trigger, thus completing the act.  If I was reckless/negligent in step 1), then it's perverse and illogical that my intentional act in step 3) would negate all criminal culpability.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

46 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Ok, but what if she went into her own apartment and there was a wormhole that took her into her neighbor's apartment, and she also went back in time and he was a dinosaur? If she trapped him in amber and used his DNA to open a theme park, how would that not constitute recklessness under the TPC?

[hayden_horn 11365]

1 hour ago, hookem17 said:

Interesting demonstration on the entry angle of the bullet right now. Makes it clear that Jean was not standing upright when shot. Could have been laying down, bent over, or kneeling. 

ie, not presenting any sort of threat. that's a real bad fact for her.

[4th and 5 4915]

51 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Man, I gotta tell you.... I just don't get this.  And I say that from a standpoint of logic and as a lifelong gun owner and shooter.

It's reckless to INTENTIONALLY pull the trigger without REASONABLY ascertaining your target.  As a shooter for over 40 years, I know that I have a duty to determine what lies beyond my target.  I have a duty to look where I'm shooting.  So, if I swing on a deer, and do not ascertain what lies beyond my new line of fire, and INTENTIONALLY pull the trigger, sending a bullet downrange into the neighboring property's playscape, killing a kid on the slide, we all know that I face criminal liability for my RECKLESS or NEGLIGENT conduct.

If I think the neighbor's kid rustling through the brush is a deer, and INTENTIONALLY pull the trigger (that is, I'm aiming at the kid, thinking he's something other than he is -- a deer), same liability.

But if I think the neighbor's kid is an intruder, and do not reasonably ascertain that fact, and INTENTIONALLY pull the trigger.....I get off completely.  You can see how this makes no sense.  The act is not just the final culmination of pulling the trigger.  The act is the collective sequence of 1) evaluating the target, 2) deciding to fire, and 3) pulling the trigger, thus completing the act.  If I was reckless/negligent in step 1), then it's perverse and illogical that my intentional act in step 3) would negate all criminal culpability.

Did you INTENTIONALLY cause the death (NOT PULL THE TRIGGER) of the individual on each case?

INTENTIONALLY means "conscious objective or desire."

Did you intend to cause the death of the kid in each of the above scenarios? NO

Did Amber Guyger intend to cause the death of Bothan Jean? YES

Did you intend to cause the death of the neighbor kid under the misapprehension that he was an intruder? YES. Was it justified under Ch. 9 of the Penal Code? IT DEPENDS ON THE EVIDENCE. You "don't get off completely" as you say. 

How do we show intent? by the facts and circumstances. Intentionally pulling the trigger of a firearm could show intent. Drawing from a holster. Pointing a gun at someone. Shooting twice. Words that are used. But intentional acts are not always dispositive.

What if I am cleaning my Glock and I pull the trigger intentionally, thinking it is unloaded, so I can disassemble it (exactly what you have to do to disassemble a Glock) and it is not in fact unloaded and the bullet goes thru the wall and kills a bystander. While I intentionally pulled the trigger, I did not intend to cause the death of the individual. But I may have been reckless or criminally negligent in doing so.

[Brisketexan 105257]

7 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

Did you intend to cause the death of the neighbor kid under the misapprehension that he was an intruder? YES. Was it justified under Ch. 9 of the Penal Code? IT DEPENDS ON THE EVIDENCE. You "don't get off completely" as you say. 

The problem is....that standard is pretty much an ipse dixit standard.  "I thought he was an intruder."  How do we know you thought that?  "Because I did."  What we're learning here is that it's almost impossible to disprove.

What I see coming out of this is a pretty easy script for killing a member of your family.  Tell your wife you hear a noise in the middle of the night.  You both get up to check, you tell her to go check the front room, you check the back (with your Glock).  And then you shoot her.  Easy story: we both got up to look for an intruder.  In the dark, I mistook her for an intruder.  I feel awful, oh my God, this is terrible.

And sometime after you're no-billed, you are off fucking your 27 yr old office assistant in Aruba.

If you are accurately stating the law, then there's a huge fucking gap that needs to be closed.  Failure to reasonably ascertain whether the person you are shooting is a proper target (instead of someone against whom you should act in self-defense) should be manslaughter.

But who are we kidding....she's a cop, and even if that was the law, it was never going to apply to her. She got special treatment from the instant she called 911, and the chances that the evidence and various scenes (e.g., her apartment, e.g., all the texts and snapchats among the cops) weren't tampered with is zero.  She was never going to be convicted of anything.  This is a show trial, nothing more.

[4th and 5 4915]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The problem is....that standard is pretty much an ipse dixit standard.  "I thought he was an intruder."  How do we know you thought that?  "Because I did."  What we're learning here is that it's almost impossible to disprove.

What I see coming out of this is a pretty easy script for killing a member of your family.  Tell your wife you hear a noise in the middle of the night.  You both get up to check, you tell her to go check the front room, you check the back (with your Glock).  And then you shoot her.  Easy story: we both got up to look for an intruder.  In the dark, I mistook her for an intruder.  I feel awful, oh my God, this is terrible.

And sometime after you're no-billed, you are off fucking your 27 yr old office assistant in Aruba.

If you are accurately stating the law, then there's a huge fucking gap that needs to be closed.  Failure to reasonably ascertain whether the person you are shooting is a proper target (instead of someone against whom you should act in self-defense) should be manslaughter.

But who are we kidding....she's a cop, and even if that was the law, it was never going to apply to her. She got special treatment from the instant she called 911, and the chances that the evidence and various scenes (e.g., her apartment, e.g., all the texts and snapchats among the cops) weren't tampered with is zero.  She was never going to be convicted of anything.  This is a show trial, nothing more.

Brisket, if it were so easy, we'd all be banging 10s in Aruba.

But instead, there's a lot of dudes over in the divorce thread.

[Brisketexan 105257]

1 minute ago, 4th and 5 said:

Brisket, if it were so easy, we'd all be banging 10s in Aruba.

But instead, there's a lot of dudes over in the divorce thread.

Too many dudes scared of getting real with their Glock.

It's okay, they've got the script now.  There is ZERO reasonableness standard for shooting someone once you use the magic words "self-defense."  That's pretty sweet.

 

Oh, and uhhh.....this may seem hard to believe, but the continued presence of my wife is not the sole impediment to me bagging a 27 yr old 10.  

Edited September 25, 2019 by Brisketexan

[4th and 5 4915]

This is interesting.....

As I wrote before, I don't think her mistake belief gets her a charge on mistake of fact because it does not negate the culpability required (intend to cause death of individual) for the offense.

It just goes to the reasonableness of self defense.

===

Here, though, in this capital murder case, knowledge of the victim's status as a police officer negates the culpability for capital murder (knowing victim was acting as a peace officer), and the trial court's refusal to charge the jury on mistake of fact was error  

 

660 S.W.2d 547 (1983)

Peter VENEGAS, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Nos. 04-81-00219-CR, 04-81-00220-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.

May 18, 1983. Rehearing Denied October 19, 1983.

548*548 Charles Butts, Butts & Butts, San Antonio, for appellant.

Bill White, Dist. Atty., Steven Hilbig, Joseph Casseb, Jerry Rosson, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, for appellee.

Before CADENA, C.J., and REEVES and TIJERINA, JJ.

 

OPINION

 

TIJERINA, Justice.

These are appeals from convictions for attempted capital murder. By agreement the two cases were consolidated for trial. The jury found appellant guilty in both causes, and the trial court assessed punishment at twenty-five (25) years' confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.

The record indicates that at approximately 11:00 a.m. on February 26, 1980, police officers armed with a search warrant arrived at appellant's apartment. The officers testified that they knocked and called out "Police with a search warrant," but hearing no response, they broke down the front door. Appellant testified he was asleep and woke up and saw someone wearing blue jeans and a blue jacket, gun in hand, inside the apartment. There was an exchange of gunfire which resulted in police officer Emilio Cavazos being shot in the right elbow. Appellant, believing he was being robbed, called the police emergency telephone number and asked for assistance. Appellant was told at that time that the people in his apartment were police officers, and he then stopped shooting.

By his first ground of error appellant contends the trial court erroneously denied his requested jury instruction applying the law of mistake of fact to the facts of the case. Appellant requested an affirmative submission of the law of mistake of fact as follows:

Defendant requests charge that affirmatively applies his mistaken belief that he was being robbed and/or unlawfully assaulted and that his life was in danger in 549*549 his own home at the hands of the intruders.

Article 36.14, TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC. ANN. (Vernon Supp.1982-1983) requires that "the judge shall, before the argument begins, deliver to the jury ... a written charge distinctly setting forth the law applicable to the case...." In the instant case, the trial court charged the jury:

Therefore, if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the acts alleged, but you further believe, or you have a reasonable doubt thereof, that, at the time of the alleged acts, he had through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact, to-wit: that the defendant then and there did not know at the very time of the shooting, if any, that Emilio Cavazos was a peace officer, and that said mistaken belief negated the culpability required for the commission of the offense, as stated in Paragraph 3 of this charge, you will find the defendant not guilty of attempted capital murder.

An identical charge was submitted regarding Officer Mike Bratton, who was also shot at by appellant during the incident in question.

The evidence is undisputed that (1) the police officers were not in police uniform, but were wearing casual clothing; (2) they broke down the front door to appellant's apartment and went in with guns in hand; (3) there was an exchange of gunfire; and (4) appellant called the police emergency telephone number asking for assistance and was told by the operator that the men in his apartment were police officers, whereupon he stopped shooting.

It appears that the trial court properly charged the jury on mistake of fact as applied to capital murder. TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.03 (Vernon 1974) provides:

(a) A person commits an offense if he commits murder as defined under Section 19.02(a)(1) of this code and:

(1) the person murders a peace officer or fireman who is acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty and who the person knows is a peace officer or fireman. [Emphasis ours.]

Appellant is charged, however, with an attempt to commit murder, and the mistake of fact testified to by appellant was that he thought he was being robbed or assaulted. We are guided by Williams v. State, 547 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), where the Court of Criminal Appeals stated: "[A] charge should affirmatively lead and dispel confusion, and because a charge that does not apply the law to the facts fails to give such guidance, error of this character should remain the subject of a per se rule."

Appellant alleges that the failure of the trial court to grant his requested charge on mistake of fact prevented the jury from finding affirmatively on a defensive issue raised by the evidence. We agree, and conclude that the trial court failed to apply the law to the facts in the court's charge on "mistake of fact." See Lynch v. State,643 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Beggs v. State, 597 S.W.2d 375 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). Appellant's testimony that he mistakenly believed he was being robbed was sufficient to entitle him to submission of his requested charge. Appellant's ground of error number one is therefore sustained.

[immortal13 4059]

6 hours ago, 4th and 5 said:

If the firing of the pistol is an intentional or knowing act, and there is no evidence that she did not intend to fire the pistol, then there can be no charge for criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter.

When I say firing of the pistol. I mean applying pressure to the trigger with your finger in an intentional manner, not an unintentional manner, nor am I talking about pulling the trigger and being wrong about the circumstances that led you to pull the trigger. 

There are mountains of case law on this issue. Imagine how many times a murderer wants a charge of manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide by saying I didn’t mean to do it the gun just went off and the Court of Appeals affirming a conviction by saying there’s no evidence that the shooting was unintentional. There has to be some evidence, even if weak,, contradicted,  not credible, to support submitting the charge to the jury That the act was not intentional or knowing

In this case she shot at him twice hitting him once in the chest, clearly an intentional act unless she’s going to testify that she just had her finger on the trigger and she did not intend to pull the trigger......TWICE

This cop double-tapped an unarmed man and was not charged, claiming he "did not know" his weapon discharged. This news outlet even reported he fired "once", even though the video clearly shows two distinct muzzle blasts...with textbook shooting form by the way. But he didn't know ........rigggggghhhhhhht

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/outrage-police-shooting-drunk-driver-paradise-california-officer-patrick-feaster/

[4th and 5 4915]

Here is how mistake of fact works, as I previously wrote a page or two ago

The mistake of fact has to negate the culpability required by the offense. I gave the example of "intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property when I thought it was mine."

The mistake of fact (I thought it was mine) negates the required culpability (intent to permanently deprive the owner)

Here the actor, charged with UUMV, thought he was lent a van by the owner, who was, in fact, not the owner. Trial court erred by not giving the mistake of fact charge.

643 S.W.2d 737 (1983)

Carlton LYNCH, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 467-82.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

January 12, 1983.

Stanley C. Kirk, Houston, for appellant.

John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., and Ray Elvin Speece and J.R. Seeman, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huttash, State's Atty. and Alfred Walker, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

Before the court en banc.

 

738*738 OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

 

ODOM, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 31.07. Punishment, enhanced under V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 12.42(d), is life. Appellant's petition to review the Court of Appeals' decision, 635 S.W.2d 172 (1982), was granted so that we could consider whether it was error to refuse appellant's requested charge on the defense of mistake of fact. V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 8.02.

Appellant testified in his own behalf, telling the jury in substance that an acquaintance had given him the keys to the van in question so he could borrow the van to pick up his motorcycle from a repair shop. The question is whether the defensive evidence raised the issue of mistake of fact, because if it did appellant was entitled to an affirmative submission of the issue. Montgomery v. State, 588 S.W.2d 950; London v. State, 547 S.W.2d 27.

Sec. 8.02, supra, provides in relevant part:

"(a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense."

The Court of Appeals overruled the ground of error because the charge on the offense required the jury to find the intent element of the offense. This approach overlooked the rule that entitles a defendant to an affirmative submission of defenses raised by the evidence. See Montgomery and London, supra. The Court of Appeals relied on Musgrave v. State, 608 S.W.2d 184. That case, however, concerned the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The issue presented here is whether the evidence raised the defense of mistake of fact. Here appellant presented evidence that his use of the van was with the permission of the person who gave him the keys and who was apparently authorized to consent to use of the vehicle. To hold such innocent use is no defense would be to make Sec. 31.07, supra, a strict liability offense. The evidence raised the issue of whether appellant was operating under a mistake of fact. It was error to refuse the requested charge on that defense.

The judgments of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are reversed and the cause is remanded to the district court.

[Brisketexan 105257]

14 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

"(a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense."

If that's applicable here, that's what we're arguing.  I don't think it's reasonable to enter an apartment that's not yours, that has an apartment number that's not yours, that has a bright red doormat that's not yours, that has a layout with a clearly visible desk and computer that's right in your line of sight and is obviously not yours, that smells of weed that's not yours, with a guy sitting/laying on a couch with the goddamned TV on, and conclude "this is a dangerous intruder in my apartment, and I must kill him at once, even though my training tells me to identify myself and give the suspect a chance to comply."

['stache 21836]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If that's applicable here, that's what we're arguing.  I don't think it's reasonable to enter an apartment that's not yours, that has an apartment number that's not yours, that has a bright red doormat that's not yours, that has a layout with a clearly visible desk and computer that's right in your line of sight and is obviously not yours, that smells of weed that's not yours, with a guy sitting/laying on a couch with the goddamned TV on, and conclude "this is a dangerous intruder in my apartment, and I must kill him at once, even though my training tells me to identify myself and give the suspect a chance to comply."

Yes, that is what it comes down to as far as her defense, and I think it's her burden to convince the jury all of that was reasonable since it's an affirmative defense. But I've learned in this thread that there are apparently hoards of dumbasses walking around who don't know where the fuck they are all the time and walk into other peoples' apartments, so I don't even know what the fuck is going on. I still don't think the rest is reasonable, but this is America, and I'm absolutely certain that at least 1 in 12 people will always find it reasonable to shoot a big scary black guy for whatever reason, 'cause stand or your ground or some shit.

Edited September 25, 2019 by 'stache

[4th and 5 4915]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If that's applicable here, that's what we're arguing.  I don't think it's reasonable to enter an apartment that's not yours, that has an apartment number that's not yours, that has a bright red doormat that's not yours, that has a layout with a clearly visible desk and computer that's right in your line of sight and is obviously not yours, that smells of weed that's not yours, with a guy sitting/laying on a couch with the goddamned TV on, and conclude "this is a dangerous intruder in my apartment, and I must kill him at once, even though my training tells me to identify myself and give the suspect a chance to comply."

As I have written more than once, I do not think the defense of mistake of fact is applicable here. There was a mistake of fact, actually quite a few, and whether it was reasonable or not is the issue as it relates to her use of force.

 

Just now, 'stache said:

Yes, that is what it comes down to as far as her defense, and I think it's her burden to convince the jury all of that was reasonable since it's an affirmative defense. But I've learned in this thread that there are apparently hoards of dumbasses walking around who don't know where the fuck they are all the time and walk into other peoples' apartments, so I don't even know what the fuck is going on. I still don't think the rest is reasonable, but this is America, and I'm absolutely certain that at least 1 in 12 people will always find it reasonable to shot a big scary black guy for whatever reason, cause stand or your ground or some shit.

It's not an affirmative defense.

The state has to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Brisketexan 105257]

1 minute ago, 4th and 5 said:

As I have written more than once, I do not think the defense of mistake of fact is applicable here. There was a mistake of fact, actually quite a few, and whether it was reasonable or not is the issue as it relates to her use of force.

 

It's not an affirmative defense.

The state has to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

And does self defense include any element of reasonableness?

[rantanamo 143]

has the forensics report come out?  Like where was he shot?  What position was he in?  

[pops 7006]

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And does self defense include any element of reasonableness?

Only if it involves a coyote and a metal staircase. 

[Brisketexan 105257]

2 minutes ago, pops said:

Only if it involves a coyote and a metal staircase. 

I rest my case.  

[TwiceHorn 31528]

19 minutes ago, rantanamo said:

has the forensics report come out?  Like where was he shot?  What position was he in?  

Yes, and it appears that he was bent or crouched over when shot.

[Constant 6754]

16 minutes ago, pops said:

Only if it involves a coyote and a metal staircase. 

Did it spiral in a regal manner or simply look poor?

[Deej 76896]

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yes, and it appears that he was bent or crouched over when shot.

Pulling his drawers back up when he heard her come in?

Her defense? "I've seen how fast guys like him come out of a three point stance. Go Cowboys!"

Edited September 26, 2019 by Deej

[4th and 5 4915]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

And does self defense include any element of reasonableness?

Jesus H Christ

 

[Gooby 640]

I was listening to the testimony of the medical examiner today. I had no idea Botham Jean was 7’1” tall.

[XYZ 2154]

There are a few great surly threads. We get to hear from pilots on the plane crash thread, from criminal lawyers on this thread, etc. I just want to say thank you to people who are experts on something for sharing the knowledge.

[TexasEd 8071]

On 9/24/2019 at 10:49 AM, 'stache said:

I still think that this guy's family had political enemies and someone blackmailed this chick to do their dirty work. They likely agreed to pay her legal fees to try and get off, but if she's convicted, sorry bitch. If you snitch the blackmail material comes out. I just don't see how one can make a mistake like that when there is a red fucking floormat to tell you it's not your floor.

Look up Hanlon's Razor

[Deej 76896]

15 minutes ago, XYZ said:

There are a few great surly threads. We get to hear from pilots on the plane crash thread, from criminal lawyers on this thread, etc. I just want to say thank you to people who are experts on something for sharing the knowledge.

If you want expert knowledge,  check out Derka's posts on Rick Barnes. 

['stache 21836]

18 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Look up Hanlon's Razor

I'm only partly serious about my rank speculation. Again, I just don't see how someone walks into the wrong apartment and starts blasting without even a split second thought that maybe you made a mistake. Stupidity doesn't come close to explaining it in my mind. But I've been educated in this thread that many assholes are just wandering around without even a basic idea of their surroundings, so I guess I'm the asshole.

Edited September 26, 2019 by 'stache

[Steel Shank 9430]

41 minutes ago, XYZ said:

There are a few great surly threads. We get to hear from pilots on the plane crash thread, from criminal lawyers on this thread, etc. I just want to say thank you to people who are experts on something for sharing the knowledge.

 

[Guest Lobo]

You obviously choose to eat hot dogs like that out of myriad reasons why you hate yourself.  It's all too convenient, you ask me...

[4th and 5 4915]

1 hour ago, Gooby said:

I was listening to the testimony of the medical examiner today. I had no idea Botham Jean was 7’1” tall.

Yeah I heard that too, and got scared myself

6 foot 1.

the ME sucks at math, admitted as much on the record

[Deej 76896]

Always add an extra foot when they're black. Help sell the bullsit narrative.

[millhouse 2616]

7'1" with the fro (no racist)

[Vic Mackey 47123]

1 hour ago, Deej said:

Always add an extra foot when they're black. Help sell the bullsit narrative.

A big scary black man that likes to smoke weed!!

[mulletpelini 5215]

so the ME is a woman obviously

[RPM 26339]

I understand the dipshit, not paying attention, horny thinking about the D confusion. What I don't understand is the decision to use deadly force. Keyword deadly. No attempt to identify or subdue. She was scared, she made a fear reaction and to quote her, "I fucked up". Actions have consequences.

[bernorange 8363]

duplicate

Edited September 26, 2019 by bernorange

[bernorange 8363]

13 hours ago, 'stache said:

... But I've learned in this thread that there are apparently hoards of dumbasses walking around who don't know where the fuck they are all the time and walk into other peoples' apartments, so I don't even know what the fuck is going on. ...

The zombie apocalypse has begun.

[TwiceHorn 31528]

5 hours ago, RPM said:

I understand the dipshit, not paying attention, horny thinking about the D confusion. What I don't understand is the decision to use deadly force. Keyword deadly. No attempt to identify or subdue. She was scared, she made a fear reaction and to quote her, "I fucked up". Actions have consequences.

Yep, like most cop shootings, this is the really problematic (I hate that that word has become politicized) part.

Even if she was 100% reasonably convinced she was in her place, there's no good reason to start blasting.  Duck behind that counter, slip out, train your gun on the door and call for backup.  In the meantime, try to communicate with the guy and figure out wtf's up.

[Kermit 3158]

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yep, like most cop shootings, this is the really problematic (I hate that that word has become politicized) part.

Even if she was 100% reasonably convinced she was in her place, there's no good reason to start blasting.  Duck behind that counter, slip out, train your gun on the door and call for backup.  In the meantime, try to communicate with the guy and figure out wtf's up.

Yes. But Police.

[tokamak 6433]

33 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yep, like most cop shootings, this is the really problematic (I hate that that word has become politicized) part.

Even if she was 100% reasonably convinced she was in her place, there's no good reason to start blasting.  Duck behind that counter, slip out, train your gun on the door and call for backup.  In the meantime, try to communicate with the guy and figure out wtf's up.

Right. I mean, this is the crux of the entire problem. Check her social media posts for insight into the mindset. They don't see their mission as protecting & serving the community, or investigating crimes, or any of the things that you and I think that the police should be doing. A startlingly large percentage of LEOs apparently see themselves as a quasi-military security force whose role is to subdue a violent and lawless populace. That's what people mean when they talk about the "us versus them" mentality.

[TwiceHorn 31528]

6 minutes ago, tokamak said:

Right. I mean, this is the crux of the entire problem. Check her social media posts for insight into the mindset. They don't see their mission as protecting & serving the community, or investigating crimes, or any of the things that you and I think that the police should be doing. A startlingly large percentage of LEOs apparently see themselves as a quasi-military security force whose role is to subdue a violent and lawless populace. That's what people mean when they talk about the "us versus them" mentality.

While I agree with your sentiment about law enforcement generally, what I see here is a little girl full of bluster and bravado on social media (a job requirement apparently), that, when the rubber hit the road on this occasion, and apparently another, became a panic-ball of ineffectiveness.  Just really incompetent and outright dangerous.  She shot when she shouldn't have and wholly failed to render aid.

Earlier, I had gotten sucked up in the debate about the reasonableness of her initial mistake.  I think reasonable minds can differ there and that means that you can't really rest a judgment on that.

But if you set that aside, her actions subsequent to opening the door leave her open to criticism and criminal penalty.

I'm also and have always been a bit uncomfortable with "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground laws" that essentially give carte blanche to blast someone in your own home without exercising any or much care or caution.

Edited September 26, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[immortal13 4059]

18 minutes ago, tokamak said:

Right. I mean, this is the crux of the entire problem. Check her social media posts for insight into the mindset. They don't see their mission as protecting & serving the community, or investigating crimes, or any of the things that you and I think that the police should be doing. A startlingly large percentage of LEOs apparently see themselves as a quasi-military security force whose role is to subdue a violent and lawless populace. That's what people mean when they talk about the "us versus them" mentality.

Hammer meet nail

[immortal13 4059]

Is that "locked and loaded" Twitter or snapchat post still on this thread?

[CHEF DIESEL 126]

Guyger shot another person six months before this incident. Is there a background on that? Can't find anything of substance online.

['stache 21836]

Add this: If the door was cracked and she suspected (or even if she heard) a burglar in what she thought was her apartment, the rational thing to do is to back away and call 911 (and if she had her radio on her she could just call it in). But nope, she just walked in and started blasting. She wanted to kill someone that night. I can list a number of things in her head that made her want to do that (to feel macho, to impress her cop buddies, pure rage, whatever) but in no world is that reasonable.

[gsoda3 3281]

25 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Add this: If the door was cracked and she suspected (or even if she heard) a burglar in what she thought was her apartment, the rational thing to do is to back away and call 911 (and if she had her radio on her she could just call it in). But nope, she just walked in and started blasting. She wanted to kill someone that night. I can list a number of things in her head that made her want to do that (to feel macho, to impress her cop buddies, pure rage, whatever) but in no world is that reasonable.

how many of you if you came home to see your door cracked open would back away and call the cops?  honestly.  

 

it's happened to me twice at our house.  i didn't call the cops either time.  i really don't think her going in to "her apt" was unreasonable.  that's not the aspect to focus on.