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

[relapse98 634]

2 hours ago, DigDug said:

Goes to show you, Don't hire midgets.

Unless they are there to shut the door.

[Steel Shank 9,552]

5 hours ago, bigup2dahorns said:

On the protocol for handling the post shooting, I just saw a former DPD higher-up postulate that it should have been treated as OIS, officer involved shooting. He claimed that because she did not change out of her DPD uniform, gave police commands, and acted in Dallas, that her actions should be viewed as an officer of Dallas police. So that should have set off a series of protocols on how to handle things, but clearly they (DPD, DA, Mayor, whoever) went a different direction.

Sounds like DPD had the Texas Ranger write their narrative, then they can say, "We didn't write that. He did." 

Not only is DPD corrupt, they're also highly stupid.

[0xdeadbeef 1,699]

Does anyone have an understanding of what would have been different if it was treated as an Officer Involved Shooting (OIS) from the start?   Was it somehow to the benefit of the shooter-cop to NOT have it treated like an OIS?   It came out today that the dispatcher calls to the Fire Department said it was a "Security Guard" who shot someone.  It doesn't seem plausible that a dispatcher would mess that up.    It seems more likely an intentional act on someones part to keep that detail under wraps for as long as possible.

I'd very much like to know if she made a call to her union rep before or after the 911 call.

 

 

[TwiceHorn 32,074]

6 hours ago, bigup2dahorns said:

Couple of points. In reference to her acting as a "security guard", that almost has to be factually incorrect. Apartments do employ security guards, but I don't believe she was one. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere yet, but she could have been a "courtesy officer" for the apartment complex. This is very common around Dallas apartments. They give a break to DPD officers on the rent, and then market to their residents and prospective residents that they have a courtesy officer who lives onsite. The courtesy officer is sometimes available to respond quicker to incidents on the property and also may walk the property to help enforce the apartment rules (noise complaints, issues at the pool, dog violations etc). 

On the protocol for handling the post shooting, I just saw a former DPD higher-up postulate that it should have been treated as OIS, officer involved shooting. He claimed that because she did not change out of her DPD uniform, gave police commands, and acted in Dallas, that her actions should be viewed as an officer of Dallas police. So that should have set off a series of protocols on how to handle things, but clearly they (DPD, DA, Mayor, whoever) went a different direction.

The OIS thing seems to be consistent with the civil law on whether she was acting within the scope of her employment, which might trigger some obligations (legal liability) from the DPD.  That the DPD didn't treat it that way may be indicative of an intention to distance from the event, which could be kind of smart, or could be kind of dirty (as in knew she was a loose cannon or did something pretty off the res).

Edited September 12, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 32,074]

20 minutes ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

Does anyone have an understanding of what would have been different if it was treated as an Officer Involved Shooting (OIS) from the start?   Was it somehow to the benefit of the shooter-cop to NOT have it treated like an OIS?   It came out today that the dispatcher calls to the Fire Department said it was a "Security Guard" who shot someone.  It doesn't seem plausible that a dispatcher would mess that up.    It seems more likely an intentional act on someones part to keep that detail under wraps for as long as possible.

I'd very much like to know if she made a call to her union rep before or after the 911 call.

 

 

I was interested in who she was talking to while pacing back and forth on that balcony or open-air section.

And yeah maybe someone wanted to keep an OIS call off the air to avoid the vultures.

See above for OIS.

[Dahobbs 18,306]

8 hours ago, JBJ said:

Its easy to show this false: by that definition capital punishment, insanity, plug pulling, and self-defense are murder, but they are in fact not.

Intent is part of the act.

The mens rea is "malice aforethought" in common law.

Doubling down on an obviously wrong statement while talking out of your ass. Bold move Cotton. 

[TwiceHorn 32,074]

Also, I suppose Dallas Fire Rescue probably does not get many calls for officer involved shootings via 911, but rather from police radios/dispatch.  It is plausible, particularly if she is shitting herself on the 911 call (e.g. "I just shot a guy! Help! Oh God! I just shot a guy I thought was breaking into an apartment!), that the dispatcher just got it wrong and/or she didn't clearly identify herself as a popo.

[4th and 5 5,004]

8 hours ago, JBJ said:

Its easy to show this false: by that definition capital punishment, insanity, plug pulling, and self-defense are murder, but they are in fact not.

Intent is part of the act.

The mens rea is "malice aforethought" in common law.

Well, it was obvious you were wrong, but let me debunk one of your theories, "plug pulling is murder" right here:

 

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE

 

TITLE 8. DEATH AND DISPOSITION OF THE BODY

 

SUBTITLE A. DEATH

 

CHAPTER 671. DETERMINATION OF DEATH AND AUTOPSY REPORTS

 

SUBCHAPTER A. DETERMINATION OF DEATH

 

Sec. 671.001. STANDARD USED IN DETERMINING DEATH. (a) A person is dead when, according to ordinary standards of medical practice, there is irreversible cessation of the person's spontaneous respiratory and circulatory functions.

(b) If artificial means of support preclude a determination that a person's spontaneous respiratory and circulatory functions have ceased, the person is dead when, in the announced opinion of a physician, according to ordinary standards of medical practice, there is irreversible cessation of all spontaneous brain function. Death occurs when the relevant functions cease.

(c) Death must be pronounced before artificial means of supporting a person's respiratory and circulatory functions are terminated.

[Steel Shank 9,552]

10 hours ago, JBJ said:

Its easy to show this false: by that definition capital punishment, insanity, plug pulling, and self-defense are murder, but they are in fact not.

Intent is part of the act.

The mens rea is "malice aforethought" in common law.

I believe you're thinking about the Pockets of Shaw.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

Look it's very simple. Keep your fucking music down or you die, mkay... good...

 

signed,

The security guard

The cop

The Confused neighbor

 

 

[JBJ 3,819]

11 hours ago, Red Six said:

In sum, yes, in your examples, murder has been committed, but there is a legal excuse for commission.

Lots of posts to answer but I think this answers 99% of them:

Whether we want to call it an excusable homicide or not a murder makes no difference to me.  I think the breakdown here is partly semantics.

The other seems to be the proposition: a homicide occured, therefore murder should be charged.  This just isn't true.  What percentage of likely excusable homicides get a murder charge?  Or better yet what in this case would warrant a murder charge?  What's the state's case...that she came home work wanting to randomly kill someone and did it in the most assbackwards way possible that just happens to reasonably fit her story but she's lying?

 

 

3 hours ago, 4th and 5 said:

Well, it was obvious you were wrong, but let me debunk one of your theories, "plug pulling is murder" right here:

 

Sec. 671.001. STANDARD USED IN DETERMINING DEATH.

I'm not sure how this supports your original statement, which is still obviously false for the reasons I gave.  But for this one example out of my list, there's no intent to kill because of a medical technicality.  Congrats.

[Deej 77,810]

She complained about the noise from the unit above her, then just conveniently kills the source of the noise? I'm going with murder.

[Dahobbs 18,306]

47 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Lots of posts to answer but I think this answers 99% of them:

Whether we want to call it an excusable homicide or not a murder makes no difference to me.  I think the breakdown here is partly semantics.

The other seems to be the proposition: a homicide occured, therefore murder should be charged.  This just isn't true.  What percentage of likely excusable homicides get a murder charge?  Or better yet what in this case would warrant a murder charge?  What's the state's case...that she came home work wanting to randomly kill someone and did it in the most assbackwards way possible that just happens to reasonably fit her story but she's lying?

 

 

I'm not sure how this supports your original statement, which is still obviously false for the reasons I gave.  But for this one example out of my list, there's no intent to kill because of a medical technicality.  Congrats.

Jesus Christ! You had no less than 4 attorneys correct you. You were wrong. You are wrong. Stop commenting on the law. Seriously. Stop.

And it is not semantics. The shit your talking about relates to affirmative defenses. There is a burden shifting involved.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Dahobbs

[TwiceHorn 32,074]

48 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Lots of posts to answer but I think this answers 99% of them:

Whether we want to call it an excusable homicide or not a murder makes no difference to me.  I think the breakdown here is partly semantics.

The other seems to be the proposition: a homicide occured, therefore murder should be charged.  This just isn't true.  What percentage of likely excusable homicides get a murder charge?  Or better yet what in this case would warrant a murder charge?  What's the state's case...that she came home work wanting to randomly kill someone and did it in the most assbackwards way possible that just happens to reasonably fit her story but she's lying?

 

 

I'm not sure how this supports your original statement, which is still obviously false for the reasons I gave.  But for this one example out of my list, there's no intent to kill because of a medical technicality.  Congrats.

The issue here is that we aren't dealing with common-law murder, or affirmative defenses, or matters in confession and avoidance.  We're dealing with the Texas Penal Code, which has entirely supplanted the common law in this state, and operates quite a bit differently.

I have posted the relevant statutes.  She committed murder as defined by the Penal Code.  The state has only to prove the elements of that offense, and it would appear that it can do so relatively easily.

There are various ways, some more applicable than others, that she can avoid conviction of, or sentencing for, murder, which is a first degree felony in Texas, without being acquitted.

Everyone here is talking Penal Code, you are talking some common law of England jive. 

[Dahobbs 18,306]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Jesus Christ! You had no less than 4 attorneys correct you. You were wrong. You are wrong. Stop commenting on the law. Seriously. Stop.

And it is not semantics. The shit [you are] talking about relates to affirmative defenses. There is a burden shifting involved.

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. 

[Dahobbs 18,306]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The issue here is that we aren't dealing with common-law murder, or affirmative defenses, or matters in confession and avoidance.  We're dealing with the Texas Penal Code, which has entirely supplanted the common law in this state, and operates quite a bit differently.

I have posted the relevant statutes.  She committed murder as defined by the Penal Code.  The state has only to prove the elements of that offense, and it would appear that it can do so relatively easily.

There are various ways, some more applicable than others, that she can avoid conviction of, or sentencing for, murder, which is a first degree felony in Texas, without being acquitted.

Everyone here is talking Penal Code, you are talking some common law of England jive. 

He is talking about nothing. He quite literally has no understanding of the subject matter. 

[JBJ 3,819]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The issue here is that we aren't dealing with common-law murder, or affirmative defenses, or matters in confession and avoidance.  We're dealing with the Texas Penal Code, which has entirely supplanted the common law in this state, and operates quite a bit differently.

I have posted the relevant statutes.  She committed murder as defined by the Penal Code.  The state has only to prove the elements of that offense, and it would appear that it can do so relatively easily.

There are various ways, some more applicable than others, that she can avoid conviction of, or sentencing for, murder, which is a first degree felony in Texas, without being acquitted.

Everyone here is talking Penal Code, you are talking some common law of England jive. 

But those reasons for not being convicted stem directly from common law English philosophy.  Sir Edward Coke in this instance.

And yes saying it's a technical murder, but not a convictable murder or an excusable murder is semantics.  Not a fucking convictable murder is not a murder.

[TwiceHorn 32,074]

Just now, JBJ said:

But those reasons for not being convicted stem directly from common law English philosophy.  Sir Edward Coke in this instance.

And yes saying it's a technical murder, but not a convictable murder or an excusable murder is semantics.  Not a fucking convictable murder is not a murder.

Still, the Penal Code is the law, the common law is not.  So even if you are right about the common law (I forgot all that shit, happily), it is of no moment.  Burglary can be committed in daylight in Texas.

[4th and 5 5,004]

 

[Huckleberry 34,589]

45 minutes ago, JBJ said:

But those reasons for not being convicted stem directly from common law English philosophy.  Sir Edward Coke in this instance.

And yes saying it's a technical murder, but not a convictable murder or an excusable murder is semantics.  Not a fucking convictable murder is not a murder.

This is the second time in a day or so where you've used your own definition of a clearly defined term to win an argument in your mind. The Texas Penal Code defines murder. That is the law. We are discussing the legal ramifications of the incident. There is therefore no question it was murder.

Once again, you can use your own personal definition of a word but it's not really persuasive to anyone else who's following along.

Seriously, read your post to yourself. "Yes it's technically murder but it's not murder."

Edited September 13, 2018 by Huckleberry
Tapa formatting

[Nope 3,151]

Can somebody explain to me why cops are even allowed to take their service weapons home with them after clocking out?

[Chewbacca 7,829]

1 minute ago, Nope said:

Can somebody explain to me why cops are even allowed to take their service weapons home with them after clocking out?

Because they might need to shoot some motherfucker who won't be quiet.

[JBJ 3,819]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Still, the Penal Code is the law, the common law is not.  So even if you are right about the common law (I forgot all that shit, happily), it is of no moment.  Burglary can be committed in daylight in Texas.

I believe GoLL brought it up.  I wouldn't argue penal code with him, but I'll slay his ass on philosophy any day. So I happily responded because he was literally arguing against Coke.  I promise not to do the same if a robbery is commited in daylight.

 

And to restate my position: seems like somewhere between manslaughter and negligent homicide.  

[JBJ 3,819]

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This is the second time in a day or so where you've used your own definition of a clearly defined term to win an argument in your mind. The Texas Penal Code defines murder. That is the law. We are discussing the legal ramifications of the incident. There is therefore no question it was murder.

Once again, you can use your own personal definition of a word but it's not really persuasive to anyone else who's following along.

Seriously, read your post to yourself. "Yes it's technically murder but it's not murder."

The only one who does that is you.  So.much so that you have to misquote me to do it.

"Saying it's a technical murder, but not a convictable murder or an excusable murder is semantics.  Not  a fucking convictable murder is not a murder."

[PilotsError 2,336]

So Dallas cops got a warrant to search for drugs in his apartment. Because of course they did

https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/12/frfrfr

[pacman 7,502]

7 hours ago, PilotsError said:

So Dallas cops got a warrant to search for drugs in his apartment. Because of course they did

https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/12/frfrfr

Sprinkle a little crack around the apartment, van, justified murder

[Tommy Nobis 905]

8 hours ago, Nope said:

Can somebody explain to me why cops are even allowed to take their service weapons home with them after clocking out?

not sure if serious

[HOOKEM4 5,176]

8 hours ago, JBJ said:

I believe GoLL brought it up.  I wouldn't argue penal code with him, but I'll slay his ass on philosophy any day. So I happily responded because he was literally arguing against Coke.  I promise not to do the same if a robbery is commited in daylight.

 

And to restate my position: seems like somewhere between manslaughter and negligent homicide.  

Post less.

7 hours ago, PilotsError said:

So Dallas cops got a warrant to search for drugs in his apartment. Because of course they did

https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/12/frfrfr

This is amazing. They aren't even trying to hide anything. The fact they haven't had a presser detailing his large drug operation is astounding. Fuck the police.

[Nope 3,151]

14 minutes ago, Tommy Nobis said:

not sure if serious

I was serious 

[South Austin 53,220]

8 hours ago, PilotsError said:

So Dallas cops got a warrant to search for drugs in his apartment. Because of course they did

https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/12/frfrfr

I have to think this will only stoke the flames of outrage.  At least I hope it does. 

[gecko 1,104]

Need something more reliable than a blog about the drug warrant.  Nothing elsewhere on the interwebs at this point.  But for now, let's all rage and run with it......

 

[TwiceHorn 32,074]

Don't piss yourself too hard.  Here's the warrant.  It's fairly obvlously a boilerplate warrant for a crime scene.  One might thing, though, that the judge or detective or someone with a couple of synapses firing might have scratched out the part about contraband and narcotics.

[Huckleberry 34,589]

Yeah, that looks like a copy and paste (or similar) situation, but they just show their incompetence by not removing it.

UNLESS THEY ARE SAYING GUYGER WAS CARRYING NARCOTICS BECAUSE SHE WAS HIGH!

Just kidding. In reality, the more interesting aspect is the part that was noted where the story in this search warrant affidavit differs from the arrest affidavit but matches one of the earlier stories we heard and which supposedly came from Guyger. At this point it sounds like Guyger's story changes constantly.

[Reagan1k 3,042]

Damn - This case is dizzying with all the spin coming from both sides.  The police force is in standard CYA mode, and the supporters of the victim's family are obviously reacting with their own defense mechanisms and justifiable skepticism  

There is more posturing here than a scoliosis convention.

I'm confused how any woman can mistake her front door from another's, because every female I know has to climb a mountain of Amazon Prime packages just to gain entry and would easily be alerted that something was wrong if a) there were no packages on any given day, and b) those packages that might be there were not addressed to her.

[TwiceHorn 32,074]

17 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Yeah, that looks like a copy and paste (or similar) situation, but they just show their incompetence by not removing it.

UNLESS THEY ARE SAYING GUYGER WAS CARRYING NARCOTICS BECAUSE SHE WAS HIGH!

Just kidding. In reality, the more interesting aspect is the part that was noted where the story in this search warrant affidavit differs from the arrest affidavit but matches one of the earlier stories we heard and which supposedly came from Guyger. At this point it sounds like Guyger's story changes constantly.

Yikes.  I noticed there were some differences in scanning it, but was looking at the contraband stuff.  Those words aren't "chargeable" to her, but the fact that they're floating around out there with enough "credibilty" to be retyped by a cop definitely raises the fishy quotient.

[Huckleberry 34,589]

22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yikes.  I noticed there were some differences in scanning it, but was looking at the contraband stuff.  Those words aren't "chargeable" to her, but the fact that they're floating around out there with enough "credibilty" to be retyped by a cop definitely raises the fishy quotient.

Exactly, based on the search warrant affidavit and the arrest affidavit we now have reason to believe that the conflicting stories from early in this situation came from Guyger. We now have evidence that she has told two investigating officers different versions of the events that led to Jean's death. I find it hard to believe that either the Texas Ranger who wrote the arrest affidavit made up the story of seeing him across the room and firing two shots in the dark or that 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.

[SDG 3,336]

That makes it sound like she shot into the apartment and wasn’t already in the apartment like the initial report. They also called it a officer involved shooting unlike previously reported. 

[PilotsError 2,336]

I wonder if her car was actually parked on his floor.  

[TwiceHorn 32,074]

6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Exactly, based on the search warrant affidavit and the arrest affidavit we now have reason to believe that the conflicting stories from early in this situation came from Guyger. We now have evidence that she has told two investigating officers different versions of the events that led to Jean's death. I find it hard to believe that either the Texas Ranger who wrote the arrest affidavit made up the story of seeing him across the room and firing two shots in the dark or that 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.

And, I think it is unfair to demand strict uniformity in her "story" for such a traumatic event, particularly as to certain details of it.  However, whether he came to the door or she entered without assistance is NOT one of those areas where you can expect variation and still be within the bounds of credibility, imo.

[formermav43 4,623]

1 hour ago, gecko said:

Need something more reliable than a blog about the drug warrant.  Nothing elsewhere on the interwebs at this point.  But for now, let's all rage and run with it......

 

The link to the actual warrant wasn’t sufficient for you? 🙄

[Hank Scorpio 17,924]

12 hours ago, JBJ said:

I think the breakdown here is partly semantics.

 

I always argue this in front of judges. I mean come on, "guilty" or "not guilty" or "disbarred" are all just semantics. As a lawyer you have to know, it doesn't matter what words you use, as long as you kinda just get the gist of it out there. It's all semantics. 

[kevwun 16,437]

She does not look 30 in the photos I've seen.  I'd have guessed she was closer to 50.  A drug problem or generally hard lifestyle wouldn't be surprising.

Edited September 13, 2018 by kevwun

[JBJ 3,819]

Just now, Hank Scorpio said:

I always argue this in front of judges. I mean come on, "guilty" or "not guilty" or "disbarred" are all just semantics. As a lawyer you have to know, it doesn't matter what words you use, as long as you kinda just get the gist of it out there. It's all semantics. 

You are barking up the wrong tree.  I'm not the one who called a non-crime a crime just because there's an affirmative defense in play.

[South Austin 53,220]

22 minutes ago, JBJ said:

You are barking up the wrong tree.  I'm not the one who called a non-crime a crime just because there's an affirmative defense in play.

C'mon, bro.  It's Hank Scorpio.  He never barks up the right tree.

[Guest Lobo]

Any results from the toxicology tests that should have been performed on her after the incident?  

[Pato del Muerto 53,462]

So will they happen to find drugs at his place, and also happen to make that public knowledge and then try to get it into the court record, even though it would have zero to do with her trial?

[Cheeseweasel 26,439]

28 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Any results from the toxicology tests that should have been performed on her after the incident?  

[Dahobbs 18,306]

1 hour ago, JBJ said:

You are barking up the wrong tree.  I'm not the one who called a non-crime a crime just because there's an affirmative defense in play.

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:

On 9/11/2018 at 11:59 PM, JBJ said:

I agree with much of the quoted portion, but your summary is, again, ignoring what mens rea is.

"Intentionally caused the death of a person" is not murder; it's only the actus reus.

On 9/12/2018 at 9:56 AM, JBJ said:

Its easy to show this false: by that definition capital punishment, insanity, plug pulling, and self-defense are murder, but they are in fact not.

Intent is part of the act.

The mens rea is "malice aforethought" in common law.

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)

 

[TwiceHorn 32,074]

14 minutes 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)

 

Heh, you said "homocide."

[Gene Parmesan 4,064]

There is so much criticism of how this has been handled that I don't think the usual cop shenanigans are going to work without riots.