Jump to content

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

'stache

By 'stache
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Constant
Constant

First off I’d like to say that I’m heartbroken for the Jean family. As a parent myself, I hope Mr. Jean’s father and mother find some peace in the outcome. They appear to be a wonderful family that ra

SubliminalHorn
SubliminalHorn

Just relax the throat and stay in rhythm 

4th&Five
4th&Five

Posted Images

Seasick Sailor

Seasick Sailor 3747

Posted
Posted (edited)

So she walks up to the door and notices it's open. She thinks it's her apartment. There is only one way out of the apartment. Yet instead of retreating into the hallway and calling 911, she chooses to enter and fire. Why not just post up outside of the apartment and demand he come out with his hands up? He has nowhere to go. She had all the time in the world. She did not have to put herself in this position. 

Edited by Seasick Sailor
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skipper

Skipper 6103

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, hopkinsnhorns said:

They've caught her in a lie about entering the parking garage.  There is missing time from when she enters to when she parks, but according to her, she drove straight to her spot with no stops.

I don't think this is really a relevant issue at all but she testified she parked then stayed on her phone in the garage for several minutes before she left the car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gene Parmesan

Gene Parmesan 3993

Posted
Posted

 

2 minutes ago, Seasick Sailor said:

So she walks up to the door and notices it's open. She thinks it's her apartment. There is only one way out of the apartment. Yet instead of retreating into the hallway and calling 911, she chooses to enter and fire. Why not just post up outside of the apartment and demand he come out with his hands up? He has nowhere to go. She had all the time in the world. She did not have to put herself in this position. 

I have the same question.  One of the cops here hopefully can answer on police training.  Removing the his/her apartment and you are just responding to a possible break in do you swing the door open and start screaming or post up outside while announcing your presence to the possible intruder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hopkinsnhorns

hopkinsnhorns 533

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Skipper said:

I don't think this is really a relevant issue at all but she testified she parked then stayed on her phone in the garage for several minutes before she left the car.

But that is countered by the physical evidence and testimony of the Chemistry teacher/football coach who returned after her.  He entered the parking garage minutes after her, but had time to park and gather his things before she came hauling ass around the corner and backed into her spot.  Why would she lie about that?  There's something there that we don't know about, and it must be damning for her to lie about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSooner518

TXSooner518 2432

Posted
Posted
Just now, hopkinsnhorns said:

But that is countered by the physical evidence and testimony of the Chemistry teacher/football coach who returned after her.  He entered the parking garage minutes after her, but had time to park and gather his things before she came hauling ass around the corner and backed into her spot.  Why would she lie about that?  There's something there that we don't know about, and it must be damning for her to lie about it.

Especially weird since she was sitting there when that testimony occurred, not like she was excluded under The Rule.

 

Question for 4th and 5 and the other lawdogs - any chance they could look for a "sudden passion" reduction to 2nd degree? Looking at the plain language, it says it only applies if there was provocation from victim or someone with victim. Can that include "perceived" provocation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Seasick Sailor

Seasick Sailor 3747

Posted
Posted
Just now, Tailgate said:

I’ve been following this thread...absolute nuts...and very nice to hear from lawyers on the board.

Are some of y’all in the courtroom or is their an outlet you can listen to or watch the trial on?

live stream: https://www.nbcnews.com/video/watch-live-former-dallas-officer-amber-guyger-testifies-at-trial-70075973880

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11360

Posted
Posted

i think her noticing things were off before opening the door was a massive defense error. i get the strategy - making her so fearful that she had to shoot this man, but i think that's not going to work at all.

if i come home and find my door cracked, i'm probably not going straight in there. as a cop, i have to think she isn't trained to go straight in guns ablazing. 

i think this renders her actions as extremely unreasonable, and renders the issue over whether or not she thought it was her apartment moot. she knew something was up outside of the door, that's when you start honing in on your surroundings, looking for signs of entry, etc. that's when you notice the doormat and the room number, imo.

i think the defense fucked her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31285

Posted
Posted
Just now, hayden_horn said:

i think her noticing things were off before opening the door was a massive defense error. i get the strategy - making her so fearful that she had to shoot this man, but i think that's not going to work at all.

if i come home and find my door cracked, i'm probably not going straight in there. as a cop, i have to think she isn't trained to go straight in guns ablazing. 

i think this renders her actions as extremely unreasonable, and renders the issue over whether or not she thought it was her apartment moot. she knew something was up outside of the door, that's when you start honing in on your surroundings, looking for signs of entry, etc. that's when you notice the doormat and the room number, imo.

i think the defense fucked her.

It definitely gives her a clearer chance to avoid the deadly confrontation than other scenarios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSooner518

TXSooner518 2432

Posted
Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

It definitely gives her a clearer chance to avoid the deadly confrontation than other scenarios.

Especially, again, given she wasn't a random CHL holder carrying, but that she also had mace, knife, taser, and the biggest one, police radio. Also neighbors in close proximity. Isn't like seeing your front door cracked in your house where the nearest other person is maybe 50 yards away or something, and couldn't hear yelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hookem17

hookem17 485

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TXSooner518 said:

Especially, again, given she wasn't a random CHL holder carrying, but that she also had mace, knife, taser, and the biggest one, police radio. Also neighbors in close proximity. Isn't like seeing your front door cracked in your house where the nearest other person is maybe 50 yards away or something, and couldn't hear yelling.

It wasn’t just that the door was cracked. She said she heard someone walking around and made the decision to put herself in a situation where she would have to shoot him. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
4th and 5

4th and 5 4914

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Especially weird since she was sitting there when that testimony occurred, not like she was excluded under The Rule.

 

Question for 4th and 5 and the other lawdogs - any chance they could look for a "sudden passion" reduction to 2nd degree? Looking at the plain language, it says it only applies if there was provocation from victim or someone with victim. Can that include "perceived" provocation?

I think you get the adequate cause (terror) but not the sudden passion element, so no, I don't think it will apply. The perceived provocation is an interesting theory.

Could it be included in the charge? possibly, because if there is any evidence whatsoever to support it, and the judge refuses to put it in the charge, it is reversible error

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hopkinsnhorns

hopkinsnhorns 533

Posted
Posted
Just now, TXSooner518 said:

Especially, again, given she wasn't a random CHL holder carrying, but that she also had mace, knife, taser, and the biggest one, police radio. Also neighbors in close proximity. Isn't like seeing your front door cracked in your house where the nearest other person is maybe 50 yards away or something, and couldn't hear yelling.

Defense experts will put to bed any idea that she was supposed to use the knife or mace to subdue the perceived burglar.  Taser or pistol were her only offensive weapons viable to her at the time, and my guess is the defense would argue that access to her taser was limited by the bundle of shit she was carrying in her left arm.  Fact of the matter is, she could have easily called for help on 911 and posted up outside the door.  If there was a burglar, there was no one in danger in her apartment as it was previously unoccupied, and the burglar has only one means of egress and that's through that apartment door, unless he's going to rapel off the 3rd/4th floor balcony like Batman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSooner518

TXSooner518 2432

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, hopkinsnhorns said:

Defense experts will put to bed any idea that she was supposed to use the knife or mace to subdue the perceived burglar.  Taser or pistol were her only offensive weapons viable to her at the time, and my guess is the defense would argue that access to her taser was limited by the bundle of shit she was carrying in her left arm.  Fact of the matter is, she could have easily called for help on 911 and posted up outside the door.  If there was a burglar, there was no one in danger in her apartment as it was previously unoccupied, and the burglar has only one means of egress and that's through that apartment door, unless he's going to rapel off the 3rd/4th floor balcony like Batman.

The argument against mace was can't use in the apartment - she chose to enter the apartment.

If your taser is unavailable b/c of bundle of shit, that argument works if your first inclination of intruder is seeing him. Works less good if you noticed the cracked door and heard noises. Hmm, here's an idea, PUT YOUR SHIT DOWN before entering the occupied apartment. 

Definitely, calling 911 or police radio is the clear option, with the available option of announcing her police presence if desired.

Edited by TXSooner518
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11360

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

At this point it aint about being a lawyer.  This is a pure jury question.

Law don't go round here.

i'm just thinking back 25 years to my mock trial days. this defense just sacrificed their queen piece for no gain. shock and surprise is her only real defense as a trained police officer. she has to have been shocked and scared so much that shooting was her only option. 

her testifying to hearing movement inside her apartment, and her STILL choosing to go in takes that advantage away. 

i simply do not get it. the second she hears movement inside her* apartment, she needs to take a step back and have a bit of a think about things. i have to think that's department policy, not shoving open the door. her keys were also in the door, so that would support the shocked and surprise narrative. i have to think if i think someone is in my apartment, i would notice if my key triggers the green admittance light instead of the red no admittance light, regardless of the door not latching. 

if i suspect someone is in my home, i'm taking very deliberate and careful actions. they fucked up with this testimony.

Edited by hayden_horn
* not her apartment
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31285

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i'm just thinking back 25 years to my mock trial days. this defense just sacrificed their queen piece for no gain. shock and surprise is her only real defense as a trained police officer. she has to have been shocked and scared so much that shooting was her only option. 

her testifying to hearing movement inside her apartment, and her STILL choosing to go in takes that advantage away. 

i simply do not get it. the second she hears movement inside her* apartment, she needs to take a step back and have a bit of a think about things. i have to think that's department policy, not shoving open the door. her keys were also in the door, so that would support the shocked and surprise narrative. i have to think if i think someone is in my apartment, i would notice if my key triggers the green admittance light instead of the red no admittance light, regardless of the door not latching. 

if i suspect someone is in my home, i'm taking very deliberate and careful actions. they fucked up with this testimony.

And, I'm not sure this is a "fact" that would have come out but for her testimony.

Perhaps it would have become clear from other evidence that she was standing in the threshold and had to offer something to explain why she shot from the doorway.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSooner518

TXSooner518 2432

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i'm just thinking back 25 years to my mock trial days. this defense just sacrificed their queen piece for no gain. shock and surprise is her only real defense as a trained police officer. she has to have been shocked and scared so much that shooting was her only option. 

her testifying to hearing movement inside her apartment, and her STILL choosing to go in takes that advantage away. 

i simply do not get it. the second she hears movement inside her* apartment, she needs to take a step back and have a bit of a think about things. i have to think that's department policy, not shoving open the door. her keys were also in the door, so that would support the shocked and surprise narrative. i have to think if i think someone is in my apartment, i would notice if my key triggers the green admittance light instead of the red no admittance light, regardless of the door not latching. 

if i suspect someone is in my home, i'm taking very deliberate and careful actions. they fucked up with this testimony.

Yeah, I think they were trying to show why she had fear, but totally agree that it would be MUCH more effective to show sudden startling movement.

2 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

None. Jury to decide.

Not sure if clear, I meant did the state offer her any plea bargain deals that she declined.

Just now, Reagan1k said:

Rely on training / resort to training - coming back to that..........You bet the prosecutor will. 

Yeppppppp, those police protocols will be very relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11360

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, I'm not sure this is a "fact" that would have come out but for her testimony.

Perhaps it would have become clear from other evidence that she was standing in the threshold and had to offer something to explain why she shot from the doorway.

i still think standing in the threshold is okay. that's not a bad fact for her. opening the door, suddenly seeing someone in her* apartment, dropping everything and skinning leather, i kind of think the jury can get with that. but knowingly approaching the situation, gun drawn, indicates motive to shoot before even opening the door. 

*not her apartment

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104628

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i think her noticing things were off before opening the door was a massive defense error. i get the strategy - making her so fearful that she had to shoot this man, but i think that's not going to work at all.

if i come home and find my door cracked, i'm probably not going straight in there. as a cop, i have to think she isn't trained to go straight in guns ablazing. 

i think this renders her actions as extremely unreasonable, and renders the issue over whether or not she thought it was her apartment moot. she knew something was up outside of the door, that's when you start honing in on your surroundings, looking for signs of entry, etc. that's when you notice the doormat and the room number, imo.

i think the defense fucked her.

Agreed....to me, this is perhaps the most damaging fact for her that's come out so far.

Well, her lying about doing CPR doesn't help her, either.  That's just an obvious flat-out lie.  Chest wound CPR, and not covered in blood?  Bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...