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

[Dahobbs 17437]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Heh, you said "homocide."

hahaha. I did. I did. 

[clapclapclap 9000]

So her first excuse started in one direction (shot him at the door) then she shifted and went the other way (walked into the apt then shot him.)  A Guyger counter play.

Edited September 13, 2018 by clapclapclap

[Orange&White 5516]

10 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

So her first excuse started in one direction (shot him at the door) then she shifted and went the other way (walked into the apt then shot him.)  A Guyger counter play.

[elnimo 55]

There's a lot of things the Rangers can examine to see if she is lying.  Camera footage, position of her car in the garage, signs she moved the body, etc.  I wonder if the can pull the electricity usage to see if they can determine if the lights were on or off.  I'd imagine if the lights were off and they were turned on, you would see a spike or increase in usage.  Likewise, if they were already on, there wouldn't be any change in usage.

I also wonder if there is a security system or whether there is a log mechanism in the smart lock that detects whether the door was left open.  My alarm beeps when the door opens and again when it closes.  I'd assume that there is potentially a log of that action somewhere.  My smart lock does the same thing to an extent.

I'm gonna guess that the Rangers aren't going to try that hard, so if the evidence isn't obvious they won't go digging.

 

[SurlyBDR 22644]

11 minutes ago, elnimo said:

There's a lot of things the Rangers can examine to see if she is lying.  Camera footage, position of her car in the garage, signs she moved the body, etc.  I wonder if the can pull the electricity usage to see if they can determine if the lights were on or off.  I'd imagine if the lights were off and they were turned on, you would see a spike or increase in usage.  Likewise, if they were already on, there wouldn't be any change in usage.

I also wonder if there is a security system or whether there is a log mechanism in the smart lock that detects whether the door was left open.  My alarm beeps when the door opens and again when it closes.  I'd assume that there is potentially a log of that action somewhere.  My smart lock does the same thing to an extent.

I'm gonna guess that the Rangers aren't going to try that hard, so if the evidence isn't obvious they won't go digging.

 

 

[Guest]

If I were on the jury I would not even care what her intentions were.  If you are so stupid that it causes you to enter another person's house and shoot them, then you need to be removed from society anyway.  That level of stupidity is just as dangerous to society as malicious intent.  

[4th and 5 4914]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

No he isn't. You have been completely incorrect. It is a crime that can be excused IF the Defendant proves an affirmative defense. That last bit is a huge non-semantic difference.  Here are some other examples of you being wrong about things:

Mens rea is simply the mental state of the actor (literally meaning "mental thing" in latin). There isn't only one mental state under the law. Intentional is a mental state. Reckless is a mental state. Negligent is a mental state. And "malice aforethought" is also a mental state. Each of those have different meanings and typically result in varying degrees of culpability/liability. Generally speaking when it comes to homocide, "malice aforethought" is the most culpable mental state because it requires not just the intention to kill, but also premeditation.  If these were all placed on a spectrum, it would look like this:

Malice aforethought (planned in advance to kill person) ----> Intentional (specifically intended to kill the person) -----> Reckless (ignored the extreme degree of risk that the person would be killed) -----> Negligent (failed to act prudently)

 

Whoa whoa whoa, don't be bringing up the common law of cavemen in here, stick to chapter 6 of the TPC please......intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence, and no others.

Edited September 13, 2018 by 4th and 5

[FondrenRoad 4378]

21 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

If I were on the jury I would not even care what her intentions were.  If you are so stupid that it causes you to enter another person's house and shoot them, then you need to be removed from society anyway.  That level of stupidity is just as dangerous to society as malicious intent.  

Especially from a cop who society trusts to open carry a weapon everywhere they go.

[4th and 5 4914]

14 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Stupid edit time limit.

To clarify, the defendant has the burden of proving the facts surrounding an affirmative defense. This is critically different than traditional defenses, which the prosecution must essentially negate by beyond a reasonable a doubt. 

And hang on right here two, Mr Hobbs

The defendant has the burden of PRODUCTION of some facts, even if weak, controverted, or incredible, entitling her to a jury charge on the defense

It is the state's burden to DISPROVE, beyond a reasonable doubt, the justification of self defense. 

[RomaVicta 29775]

 Maybe she was shooting at a snek in the room.

[Vic Mackey 46932]

Especially from a cop who society trusts to open carry a weapon everywhere they go.

But she just got done with a 200hr shift!

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

 Maybe she was shooting at a snek in the room.

No one has said he was exposing himself to her.

[4th and 5 4914]

I think the location of the shells can be used to locate her at the time of shooting (unless she moved them).

Next time I run some rounds thru a glock I'll take note if the shells go forward to the side or back. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

9 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Especially from a cop who society trusts to open carry a weapon everywhere they go.

But she just got done with a 200hr shift!

Only 200?  She hasn't clocked out since January. 

[woohorn 1131]

She does not look 30 in the photos I've seen.  I'd have guessed she was closer to 50. 

12 hr shifts on ELITE warrant roundup unit wlll do that to the most youthful of us. She is literally giving up her lifeforce for the good of her fellow man.

[Jive Turkey 12568]

Several things I'd really like to know for sure:

1.  Where did she actually park?  

2.  Did she use an elevator?  

3.  How did she get to Jean's floor?

4.  Did she shoot Jean inside the apartment or from the hallway?

5.  Where are the light switches in her apartment?

First three are interrelated.  Should be able to determine all of this assuming she used a fob or key card to access an elevator or the door to Jean's floor.

If she really thought she was entering her apartment and she did walk in, why wouldn't she first turn on the lights.  If her place is like mine, the light switch is right next to the door, so that's the first thing I turn on when I enter at night.  Why wouldn't she do that?  Unless we're going with the "she had a ton of bags in her arms" angle, or she used a lamp.  Still, I'd like to know.

[Guest Lobo]

I can't help but think that if the building had instituted Kramer's suggestion of having photos of all the tenants up on a big board in the lobby, that she would have known her neighbors better and not just opened fire on the first person she saw in the building aside from her own reflection.  

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

 Maybe she was shooting at a snek in the room.

[RomaVicta 29775]

And it ain't no too damn boo koo.

[Dahobbs 17437]

1 hour ago, 4th and 5 said:

Whoa whoa whoa, don't be bringing up the common law of cavemen in here, stick to chapter 6 of the TPC please......intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence, and no others.

I was speaking generally, not specifically as to the penal code. And my point was that "malice aforethought" historically was simply one type of mental state. The precise definitions and characteristics of mental states have changed over the year, either through progression in the common law or via statutory enactment. But the general framework has remained. 

 

1 hour ago, 4th and 5 said:

And hang on right here two, Mr Hobbs

The defendant has the burden of PRODUCTION of some facts, even if weak, controverted, or incredible, entitling her to a jury charge on the defense

It is the state's burden to DISPROVE, beyond a reasonable doubt, the justification of self defense. 

It depends on the jurisdiction as to what the precise burden of proof is for an affirmative defense. In Texas, the Defendant must prove it by a preponderance of the evidence:

Quote

 

Sec. 2.04 (Texas Penal Code). AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. (a) An affirmative defense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is an affirmative defense to prosecution . . . ."

(b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of an affirmative defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense.

(c) The issue of the existence of an affirmative defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense.

(d) If the issue of the existence of an affirmative defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that the defendant must prove the affirmative defense by a preponderance of evidence.

It sounds like you are referring to general defenses or exceptions under section 2.02 or 2.03:

Quote

 

Sec. 2.02. EXCEPTION. (a) An exception to an offense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is an exception to the application of . . . ."

(b) The prosecuting attorney must negate the existence of an exception in the accusation charging commission of the offense and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant or defendant's conduct does not fall within the exception.

(c) This section does not affect exceptions applicable to offenses enacted prior to the effective date of this code.

 

Sec. 2.03. DEFENSE. (a) A defense to prosecution for an offense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is a defense to prosecution . . . ."

(b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of a defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense.

(c) The issue of the existence of a defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense.

(d) If the issue of the existence of a defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that a reasonable doubt on the issue requires that the defendant be acquitted.

(e) A ground of defense in a penal law that is not plainly labeled in accordance with this chapter has the procedural and evidentiary consequences of a defense.

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Dahobbs

[C-Man 27041]

1 hour ago, Jive Turkey said:

Several things I'd really like to know for sure:

1.  Where did she actually park?  

2.  Did she use an elevator?  

3.  How did she get to Jean's floor?

4.  Did she shoot Jean inside the apartment or from the hallway?

5.  Where are the light switches in her apartment?

First three are interrelated.  Should be able to determine all of this assuming she used a fob or key card to access an elevator or the door to Jean's floor.

If she really thought she was entering her apartment and she did walk in, why wouldn't she first turn on the lights.  If her place is like mine, the light switch is right next to the door, so that's the first thing I turn on when I enter at night.  Why wouldn't she do that?  Unless we're going with the "she had a ton of bags in her arms" angle, or she used a lamp.  Still, I'd like to know.

Give me answers to the first three and I'd be able to make a pretty certain guess whether she's lying about how this went down.

[Dahobbs 17437]

6 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Give me answers to the first three and I'd be able to make a pretty certain guess whether she's lying about how this went down.

Yeah, those seem pretty important. I wonder if the garage has cameras. 

[El Diablo 4232]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yeah, those seem pretty important. I wonder if the garage has cameras. 

Ya think maybe she had a body cam?

[Constant 6722]

1 minute ago, El Diablo said:

Ya think maybe she had a body cam?

You don’t wear those home. 

[C-Man 27041]

What did Philip Kingston post on FB or Twitter regarding this that got TC Broadnax all in a tizzy? They were discussing it on The Ticket this morning.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

10 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

Ya think maybe she had a body cam?

kinky.......

[Gene Parmesan 3993]

Are you guys trying to ascertain if this is accidental murder vs premeditated murder?  She says she parked on the wrong level.  Each level corresponds to the floor you live on so she walked started on the wrong floor.  Unless you don't believe that she actually thought it was her apartment I don't know why you care so much about the details that lead her to the apartment.

 

 

[Dahobbs 17437]

1 minute ago, Gene Parmesan said:

Are you guys trying to ascertain if this is accidental murder vs premeditated murder?  She says she parked on the wrong level.  Each level corresponds to the floor you live on so she walked started on the wrong floor.  Unless you don't believe that she actually thought it was her apartment I don't know why you care so much about the details that lead her to the apartment.

 

 

We are trying to ascertain whether she is lying about the reason she went to the apartment. We have statements from other residents that parking is a free-for-all, so you wouldn't necessarily expect to always park on the same level as your apartment. And,  if she didn't actually park on the same level as victim's apartment, that is proof she was lying about her reason for going to the wrong apartment -- and suggests she is probably lying about other things as well. 

[SDG 3319]

I think you missed multiple rumors floating around the web and this site.  

 

see the noice complaint discussion.  

Edited September 13, 2018 by SDG

[T’Boo Ted Marshall 2724]

6 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

 Detective Angela Arredondo made up that Jean confronted Guyger at the door. The far likelier scenario is that Guyger told the Ranger one story and the detective a different story.

Uh oh.  I know her.  Went to college with her.  

[Huckleberry 32694]

14 minutes ago, SDG said:

I think you missed multiple rumors floating around the web and this site.  

 

see the noice complaint discussion.  

[relapse98 634]

There we go

Quote

Two bullet casings, a police backpack and vest and 10.4 grams of marijuana were seized from Botham Jean's apartment, where he was fatally shot by a Dallas police officer last week, according to a search warrant affidavit returned this week.

A lunch box, a laptop computer, a metal marijuana grinder, two radio frequency identification keys – the type of keys used to enter units at the South Side Flats, where Jean lived – and two used packages of medical aid were also seized from the apartment.

Guarantee they are going to start spinning this as a drug dealer.

[SDG 3319]

shame.  I added that part last and still misspelled it.

[Brisketexan 104557]

4 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

There we go

Guarantee they are going to start spinning this as a drug dealer.

There it is.  Like clockwork.

If he didn't want to get shot, he shouldn't have been a druggie breaking the law.  In fact, he answered the door in a drug-fueled rage, and any reasonable officer would have been in fear for her life.  She just wanted to get home to her family, she had no choice.

Close the book on this one, we're done.

[woohorn 1131]

I guess he won't need it, but swiping his laptop is a dick move.

[Brisketexan 104557]

Just now, woohorn said:

I guess he won't need it, but swiping his laptop is a dick move.

They're going to search through it to find ANYTHING that could POSSIBLY be characterized as connected to criminal activity, so that they can then tell the story of this brave cop taking a dangerous criminal off the streets.

I am not kidding.  Not even a little bit.

Wanna bet they haven't even asked to look at her cellphone or computer?

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

[SDG 3319]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

They're going to search through it to find ANYTHING that could POSSIBLY be characterized as connected to criminal activity, so that they can then tell the story of this brave cop taking a dangerous criminal off the streets.

I am not kidding.  Not even a little bit.

Wanna bet they haven't even asked to look at her cellphone or computer?

Sadly if the victims family wants justice they have to do their own investigation.  Who am I kidding; they won't get justice, but maybe they'll get a pay check from DPD.  

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

Tell ya what. I'll get pissed off about the Nike/Kap protests when this shit stops. Until then, I get it. Fuck the police and their thin blue bullshit.

[formermav43 4599]

"A source with knowledge of the investigation told WFAA that the marijuana was found out in the open in the apartment. 10.4 grams is less than half of an ounce."

Of course it was. Right where they planted it.

[Brisketexan 104557]

4 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

"A source with knowledge of the investigation told WFAA that the marijuana was found out in the open in the apartment. 10.4 grams is less than half of an ounce."

Of course it was. Right where they planted it.

Unpossible.  Her fellow officers would never do that.

[Chewbacca 7729]

I'm a lot more interested in the toxicology report of what was in her bloodstream at the time this happens.  Do you think they even did a blood draw on her?  Or was she sent home to sober up and work on her story?

[Brisketexan 104557]

2 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

I'm a lot more interested in the toxicology report of what was in her bloodstream at the time this happens.  Do you think they even did a blood draw on her?  Or was she sent home to sober up and work on her story?

I'm sure they did a blood draw.  That's very much standard protocol.

Now, if that sample happened to get lost, or tainted so that it's inadmissible, on the way to the lab....gosh, that would be shocking.

[Eternal Noob 29]

I laid off this thread for 48 hours...are we saying now that this was in no way an accident?

[Brisketexan 104557]

1 minute ago, Eternal Noob said:

I laid off this thread for 48 hours...are we saying now that this was in no way an accident?

I imagine the evidence on that will stay a muddled mess.

What will NOT be a muddled mess will be her story, wherein she was confronted by a rage-filled, drug-fueled, giant black man, and she had no choice but to defend herself against the hulking, attacking monster.  If only he would have obeyed her lawful commands, he'd be alive today.

[Dahobbs 17437]

7 minutes ago, Eternal Noob said:

I laid off this thread for 48 hours...are we saying now that this was in no way an accident?

It was never an accident. She intentionally killed the man. The only question is if she has a defense or an exception to the killing.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Dahobbs

[4th and 5 4914]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I was speaking generally, not specifically as to the penal code. And my point was that "malice aforethought" historically was simply one type of mental state. The precise definitions and characteristics of mental states have changed over the year, either through progression in the common law or via statutory enactment. But the general framework has remained. 

 

It depends on the jurisdiction as to what the precise burden of proof is for an affirmative defense. In Texas, the Defendant must prove it by a preponderance of the evidence:

It sounds like you are referring to general defenses or exceptions under section 2.02 or 2.03:

 

 

The Burden of Proof. The defendant bears the burden of producing some evidence in support of a claim of self-defense. See Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Once the defendant produces such evidence, the State bears the burden of persuasion to disprove that defense. Id. “The defendant is not required to prove self-defense. Rather, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that self-defense does not apply to the defendant's conduct.” Texas Criminal Pattern Jury Charges: Criminal Defenses § 32.2, at 184 (2015). 

[bernorange 8348]

3 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

... Do you think they even did a blood draw on her?  ...

I remember reading one of the early reports mentioning that they did a blood draw before releasing her.  Not that that means anything.

So the excuse I read as to why she didn't notice the bright red floor mat is because she was carrying so many packages.  I would assume that means she didn't take the stairs from the parking garage if an elevator was available.

Still waiting to hear about the location of Jeans body.  Was it near the door or across the room? 

[Brisketexan 104557]

2 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Still waiting to hear about the location of Jeans body.  Was it near the door or across the room? 

It was next to the angel dust-laced joint he'd been smoking, and near something that he was wielding as a weapon, leaving her no choice but to defend herself.

[Dahobbs 17437]

3 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

 

 

The Burden of Proof. The defendant bears the burden of producing some evidence in support of a claim of self-defense. See Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Once the defendant produces such evidence, the State bears the burden of persuasion to disprove that defense. Id. “The defendant is not required to prove self-defense. Rather, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that self-defense does not apply to the defendant's conduct.” Texas Criminal Pattern Jury Charges: Criminal Defenses § 32.2, at 184 (2015). 

Self-Defense is apparently not an affirmative defense under the statute. Rather, it is listed as a defense. I wasn't trying to define any particular defense, but rather providing a general description of the difference between a defense and an affirmative defense.