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

[staboner 5067]

can't decide? 

come the F on. even my cynical ass thought this was happening

[crash_davis 23465]

if this bitch walks, i'll start randomly going to apartments and shooting people claiming i thought it was my apartment.  

[hayden_horn 11402]

is this cop not a ham sandwich?

[RollLeft 5088]

4 hours ago, DaysOff said:

Then I hope the "community" burns the city to the ground.

Fuck this bitch, but also fuck this position.  Limit it to the police department or any place with an ou flag on it.  

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

1 minute ago, RollLeft said:

Fuck this bitch, but also fuck this position.  Limit it to the police department or any place with an ou flag on it.  

tough, but fair.

[smuggs 9394]

4 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

She'll walk

Into your apartment and kill you.

[Chewbacca 7827]

If she walks, this is as much on the prosecutor as it is the grand jury members.  Is the Dallas DA prosecuting, or did they bring in a special prosecutor?

[crash_davis 23465]

20 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

If she walks, this is as much on the prosecutor as it is the grand jury members.  Is the Dallas DA prosecuting, or did they bring in a special prosecutor?

"prosecuting" may be a stretch.  un-enthusiastically going through the motions may be a more apt description.

[PilotsError 2339]

OJ put more effort into looking for the real killers than this DA will put in trying to get a legit indictment.

[El Diablo 4232]

If the good people of Dallas are anything like the posters here, they're not going to pass up a chance to hang a cop. They'll indict.

[Chewbacca 7827]

26 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

"prosecuting" may be a stretch.  un-enthusiastically going through the motions may be a more apt description.

That is my point.  An unenthusiastic prosecution is how lots of cops walk on shit like this.  The DAs are complicit.

[Guest Lobo]

All this time, and still no toxicology report?  Kinda seems strange for the D.A. to make a final decision on charges without getting all the facts on the officer in question.  

[kibbles 70]

She feared for her life.  A man had broken into her home AND smoked weed.  

[Firemans4Horn 18501]

Just now, kibbles said:

She feared for her life.  A black man had broken into her home AND smoked weed.  

Fixed it

[kibbles 70]

Justice is color blind?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 hours ago, Deej said:

If she walks, and if someone happened to mistake her apartment for theirs, and the same situation occurred, they'd be good? Just wondering if they uphold the same standard.

Just make sure you're clearly heard saying "my bad" after shooting them.

[Beau Vine 55832]

2 hours ago, crash_davis said:

if this bitch walks, i'll start randomly going to apartments and shooting people claiming i thought it was my apartment.  

Could you start with Bob Bowlsby's place?

[HRSchenker 2331]

Lock this officer up for murder, fire Chief Hall, and I'll be sound as a pound.

[Lhorn 5080]

Kinda wondered if there was more to this story that would get uncovered during investigation.  I guess not?  It’s still an off duty police officer walked into an apartment other than her own and shot the apartment “owner” dead because presumably she thought he has broken into her apartment (and brought all his stuff because I’m sure she noticed it didn’t look like her belongings)?

man that’s rough if she doesn’t get at least indicted to allow a jury to hear both sides 

[NeverMarryAStripper 22246]

If the good people of Dallas are anything like the posters here, they're not going to pass up a chance to hang a cop. They'll indict.

I’m glad you’d be fine with a cop walking into your house and shooting one of your family members dead

[Chewbacca 7827]

1 hour ago, El Diablo said:

If the good people of Dallas are anything like the posters here, they're not going to pass up a chance to hang a cop. They'll indict.

Are you serious?  She went into another person's home and shot him dead.  That doesn't bother you?

[El Diablo 4232]

Was I wrong?

I'm pretty sure that the general sentiment here regarding cops is not terribly positive. My assumption is that is a widespread sentiment and not limited to Surly.

This seems like a pretty cut and dried case of murder by the cop. They'll indict. Y'all seem to think otherwise.

[hayden_horn 11402]

11 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

Was I wrong?

I'm pretty sure that the general sentiment here regarding cops is not terribly positive. My assumption is that is a widespread sentiment and not limited to Surly.

This seems like a pretty cut and dried case of murder by the cop. They'll indict. Y'all seem to think otherwise.

because grand juries usually hear several cases. if they witness a DA pursuing certain cases with more vigor than others, and then they see a DA go completely halfass on another, then the signal is clear that they shouldn't indict. there's a reason they say a DA could indict a ham sandwich, if they were so inclined. also, there's no defense present, but the DA presents whatever evidence they want. also, you don't need all the grand jurors to vote to indict, just more than half, i think.

*not a law dog, but it's an educated guess

[El Diablo 4232]

3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

because grand juries usually hear several cases. if they witness a DA pursuing certain cases with more vigor than others, and then they see a DA go completely halfass on another, then the signal is clear that they shouldn't indict. there's a reason they say a DA could indict a ham sandwich, if they were so inclined. also, there's no defense present, but the DA presents whatever evidence they want. also, you don't need all the grand jurors to vote to indict, just more than half, i think.

*not a law dog, but it's an educated guess

Would a DA spend 4 days trying to get an indictment on the ham sandwich? I'm guessing not, unless he really wanted that indictment. Seems to be the case here. I think they'll indict.

[PilotsError 2339]

It can also take four days to convince a GJ that this wasn't murder.

[El Diablo 4232]

2 minutes ago, PilotsError said:

It can also take four days to convince a GJ that this wasn't murder.

Brisket? That you?

Pardon me for believing that a panel of people could determine a ham sandwich when presented with one, regardless of what a DA tries to present as evidence to the contrary.

[C-Man 27690]

3 hours ago, Lobo said:

All this time, and still no toxicology report?  Kinda seems strange for the D.A. to make a final decision on charges without getting all the facts on the officer in question.  

I'm sure that report is somewhere and the DA office has seen it. Would be nice for the general public to have seen it since Botham Jean's was out pretty much the very next day.

[Chewbacca 7827]

8 minutes ago, C-Man said:

I'm sure that report is somewhere and the DA office has seen it. Would be nice for the general public to have seen it since Botham Jean's was out pretty much the very next day.

We'll see it if this goes to trial.  If they let her walk, it's never seeing the light of day, no matter what is on it.

[RPM 26565]

If she walks, that protest in 2016 is gonna look like a kindergarten playday compared to the reaction to this one.

[immortal13 4059]

The big problem for the DA here is that the most appropriate charge for her crime is murder. I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, but my understanding is thar in the state of Texas manslaughter is supposed to apply to acts of recklessness only. Not deliberately pointing a a gun at someone and pulling the trigger. The odd circumstance in this case is that she thought it was her apartment, in which case what she did would have been legal. Her simple mistake, or drunkenness or whatever contributed to her decision is irrelevant, or under Texas law it is supposed to be.  We shall see.

[Pato del Muerto 53343]

What if they say the recklessness was in knowing the facts at hand, not the act that led to the death?

[Steel Shank 9533]

If it's not too much trouble, I'd like to see a pic of this ham sandwich. Uhhh......for a friend.

[4th and 5 4997]

I’ve commented on this way back when but It takes 10 of 12 grand jurors to find probable cause.

She will be indicted, of that I am sure, for what, I am not. If she Is not I believe the new DA will present the case to another grand jury next year  

But it should be murder as she intentionally caused the death of another. He conscious objective or desire in pointing a firearm at him and pulling the trigger twice is a textbook murder case.

She has the defenses of self defense and mistake of fact. Her belief does not have to be correct, it just has to be reasonable, even if it is wrong. You have the right to defend yourself from apparent danger as if it were real.

The state, not the defense, has the burden of DISPROVING, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, the applicability of both of the defenses.

I'm looking forward to watching this trial. I would love to try this case.

['stache 22117]

There is no way she had a “reasonable” belief it was her apartment. She may have in fact thought that (still skeptical) but that belief is not reasonable. As I recall reasonableness is tested by way of the ordinary person. An ordinary person does not mistake another persons apartment for their own. And if her story is right that she was new to the building and the floors look similar a reasonable person would pay extra attention and in any event wouldn’t be so sure of themselves to blast another person with a pistol. Nothing about any of that is reasonable.

[Guest Lobo]

I certainly hope the grand jury and DA realize what a horrific precedent this will set.  Any CHL carrier that lives in a multi family complex that has ever worked more than 9 hours straight in a day at any job, will have carte Blanche to finally provide a final solution to the annoying neighbor question.  

[Kyle 207]

16 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I certainly hope the grand jury and DA realize what a horrific precedent this will set.  Any CHL carrier that lives in a multi family complex that has ever worked more than 9 hours straight in a day at any job, will have carte Blanche to finally provide a final solution to the annoying neighbor question.  

This is where my head goes ... I fully support defending oneself. However, given she walked into the apartment - so I assume she was closer to the door - would not the right thing to do would be for her to step out of the apartment, into the lighted hall, and ... I don't know ... call the cops? Then she probably would have figured out she was in the wrong spot. Seems like on the fourth floor he was pretty confined and was not going to escape if she was worried about a robber taking her VCR.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Kyle

[Gene Parmesan 4062]

Just like when the OJ verdict hit all those husbands went and chopped their wives heads off.

[PilotsError 2339]

27 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I certainly hope the grand jury and DA realize what a horrific precedent this will set.  Any CHL carrier that lives in a multi family complex that has ever worked more than 9 hours straight in a day at any job, will have carte Blanche to finally provide a final solution to the annoying neighbor question.  

This won't have anything to do with us regular citizens.  It will just be another reminder to all cops that they are totally and completely above the law.

['stache 22117]

16 hours ago, immortal13 said:

The big problem for the DA here is that the most appropriate charge for her crime is murder. I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, but my understanding is thar in the state of Texas manslaughter is supposed to apply to acts of recklessness only. Not deliberately pointing a a gun at someone and pulling the trigger. The odd circumstance in this case is that she thought it was her apartment, in which case what she did would have been legal. Her simple mistake, or drunkenness or whatever contributed to her decision is irrelevant, or under Texas law it is supposed to be.  We shall see.

I am a lawyer, and I'm quite certain the statute also says "provided that, it shall not be a crime for a police officer, whether or not on duty, to shoot and kill a large drug fueled black person, as all such incidents are deemed to be self defense regardless of any other surrounding circumstance."

Another part of the statute defines "police officer" as "any white person" and "large drug fueled black person" as "any black person."

Edited November 30, 2018 by 'stache

[Zepol87 9308]

6 minutes ago, PilotsError said:

This won't have anything to do with us regular citizens.  It will just be another reminder to all cops that they are totally and completely above the law.

As it always is. Every time this happens these fucks just find out how untouchable they are

[Guest Lobo]

37 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

Just like when the OJ verdict hit all those husbands went and chopped their wives heads off.

Nope, wrong.  Like it or not...when somebody is murdered inside their own apartment...the first person of interest is not the neighbor.  They may be questioned about what they saw/heard...but they are extremely rarely considered a suspect.  But when an estranged wife/ex-wife is murdered alongside her lover...absolutely sure as shit one of the first people of interest is the ex-husband/estranged husband.  That's just how life works, it goes back way before our judicial system in this county. 

Pissed off ex husbands don't kill the estranged wife and her new, sexier boyfriend even if they want to, because sometimes they know they won't get away with it.  I'd have shot multiple neighbors over the years with this woman's bullshit excuse.  

[TXSooner518 2455]

19 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

because grand juries usually hear several cases. if they witness a DA pursuing certain cases with more vigor than others, and then they see a DA go completely halfass on another, then the signal is clear that they shouldn't indict. there's a reason they say a DA could indict a ham sandwich, if they were so inclined. also, there's no defense present, but the DA presents whatever evidence they want. also, you don't need all the grand jurors to vote to indict, just more than half, i think.

*not a law dog, but it's an educated guess

I served on a Travis County grand jury (and am a semi-law dog, ha), and there were a couple times where it was basically made very clear that the prosecutor was bringing the case out of a kind of obligation rather than an actual desire to prosecute.

[Gene Parmesan 4062]

2 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Nope, wrong.  Like it or not...when somebody is murdered inside their own apartment...the first person of interest is not the neighbor.  They may be questioned about what they saw/heard...but they are extremely rarely considered a suspect.  But when an estranged wife/ex-wife is murdered alongside her lover...absolutely sure as shit one of the first people of interest is the ex-husband/estranged husband.  That's just how life works, it goes back way before our judicial system in this county. 

Pissed off ex husbands don't kill the estranged wife and her new, sexier boyfriend even if they want to, because sometimes they know they won't get away with it.  I'd have shot multiple neighbors over the years with this woman's bullshit excuse.  

I hope she rots, but your worry is dumb.  I get the joke of how we hate our neighbors, but normal folks aren't sitting around thinking on how to kill them and get away with it.  If they are, they don't have to think long because there are shit tons of unsolved murders to pull inspiration from.  A not guilty verdict doesn't change that.

[Guest Lobo]

I'm not worried about an actual onslaught of neighbor-on-neighbor murders dude.  But they do happen, have always happened, and will continue to happen.  The concern is now they have a brand new excuse that they didn't have before with high-profile case precedent. I think this results in the exact same number of neighbor-on-neighbor homicides as the last 10 years.  But it will give an interesting defense opportunity where there didn't used to be much of one.  People have used the "Thought it was somebody else", "Believed it was an intruder", or "Thought I was home and I wasn't apparently" for centuries.  But we've held close the notion that police wouldn't be so flippant.  

[Kyle 207]

Anyone no drunk on identity politics emotional hysteria ...

How does the fact she was off duty impact potential liability of the city? As a parallel, is it the fact she is a cop or a government employee change the situation as opposed to a private citizen? If she was a waitress at Hooters could the family sue the restaurant chain?

[bigup2dahorns 3348]

Anyone no drunk on identity politics emotional hysteria ...
How does the fact she was off duty impact potential liability of the city? As a parallel, is it the fact she is a cop or a government employee change the situation as opposed to a private citizen? If she was a waitress at Hooters could the family sue the restaurant chain?

It’s been discussed on here several times. First, there are civil lawsuits, including the city and the former officer. Also, it isn’t clear whether she acted in a capacity as an officer or not. Just because she was technically off the clock, she was within city limits, wearing her police uniform, and giving police like commands. So these are points still to be argued and up for debate.

[Macanudo 13259]

10 minutes ago, bigup2dahorns said:

 

It’s been discussed on here several times. First, there are civil lawsuits, including the city and the former officer. Also, it isn’t clear whether she acted in a capacity as an officer or not. Just because she was technically off the clock, she was within city limits, wearing her police uniform, and giving police like commands. So these are points still to be argued and up for debate.

 

Maybe I'm just an idiot but I don't think an off duty cop, in uniform, should automatically be able to be an asshole and go randomly shooting people.   I think she should be held to a HIGHER standard.

[Guest Lobo]

^

Yep.  Most priests that fuck the mouths of little boys did it after "Mass Has Ended"...and they did not in peace.  Most teachers fuck kids in their class after school hours.  Sometimes your access to weapons, victims, and public trust keep a burden on your shoulders long after business hours and the uniform/cloth/chalk holder come off...

[Gene Parmesan 4062]

29 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I'm not worried about an actual onslaught of neighbor-on-neighbor murders dude.  But they do happen, have always happened, and will continue to happen.  The concern is now they have a brand new excuse that they didn't have before with high-profile case precedent. I think this results in the exact same number of neighbor-on-neighbor homicides as the last 10 years.  But it will give an interesting defense opportunity where there didn't used to be much of one.  People have used the "Thought it was somebody else", "Believed it was an intruder", or "Thought I was home and I wasn't apparently" for centuries.  But we've held close the notion that police wouldn't be so flippant.  

Her defense is I'm a cop / self defense.  That's already a well that's been drawn from a few times.  This isn't a new precedent.  If you got neighbors you want to shoot and not face jailtime this is what you can do. 

1  Become a cop

2  Start a fight with them

3  Yell out some orders

4  Shoot them

That precedent was set ages ago.

 

[bigup2dahorns 3348]

I believe the question is if she acted in a police capacity and is the city liable. I’m not a lawyer and not familiar with case law that would make it clear in either way. Sounds like it will be argued in court, unless someone here can set us straight.