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

[Huckleberry 34644]

3 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

there've been a few places (work, hotels) where i've used RFIDs for extended periods of time.  once i got used to it, i never waited for the light to flash green, i always "swiped" and reached for the doorknob/handle in one motion.  a couple of times the door didn't unlock for whatever reason (more than once it was the wrong door) but it didn't register as "locked" until too late so i pretty much walked into a locked door.  

 

i could see her doing the same-  swipe her key then reach for the doorknob at the same time but it's locked, bj hears the commotion and comes to investigate by opening the door, she gets surprised and goes into authority mode, he slams the door shut, she bangs on it and shouts OPEN UP, and he does eventually but gets capped.  

 

2 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you, I just don't think it's enough to swing the reasonableness out of her story at least not to a jury or without more evidence.  They'll have some doctor explaining how the brains tunes shit out and such.

This isn't reasonable doubt, though. Her story is starting to require so many specific and unusual possibilities that it is quickly losing any reasonable basis for belief. I mean it's also possible that an alien was behind Jean and just about to slit his throat and she fired trying to save him but the alien was so fast and strong that it moved Jean's body into the path of the oncoming bullet. But that's also not reasonable.

[Brisketexan 106893]

1 hour ago, Gene Parmesan said:

The apartment #s were shown in videos early on.  To me that's 1 in a million things that should have registered with her between the garage and the door but didn't.  If you believe that her arriving at that door was in fact purely accidental then you pretty much just write those things off as being tuned out.  It happens.  The alternative to think she purposefully went to that door, but there is basically zero evidence of this other than unconfirmed noise complaints.  Now what happened after she arrived at the door is entirely in question.

 

46 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Perhaps it can explain showing up at the door. The problem with this theory, though, is that zoning out like that requires that your routine is being repeated. That's how people leave their kids in a car, because once they get on the drive to work their brain checks out as they're in a routine. If the baby doesn't cry, it becomes dangerous if they're tired, etc.

But once she's at the door her routine was broken. There was a red doormat. The light that turns green when she inserts her key turns red instead. There were almost literally multiple red flags that should have snapped her out of it.

Okay, here's something new -- Brisket cutting the cop some slack (I'm NOT concluding that her story is true -- I'm just saying that it's plausible).

A few years ago, I was working long hours on a case for weeks on end.  I'm driving home one night at 9:30, and I was regularly working that late.  I'm at a red light, at the front of the line.  Cars next to me, INCLUDING a cop.  Cars crossing the intersection in front of me.  In my field of vision ahead, a light an intersection ahead turned green.  I go.  Right through a red light.  Right into cross traffic (which fortunately, wasn't going so fast that they couldn't slow down or steer around me).  I realized what I was doing when I was well into the intersection and cars are coming at me.  I look in my rearview mirror, and I can see the cop through his windshield, just staring at me with his mouth open.  I went ahead and maneuvered to the left to turn into a parking lot to wait for him (he turned on his lights by then).

He comes to my window, clearly expecting a drunk.  Pause..."man....what happened back there?"  "Officer, I have no idea.  I'm really, really tired.  I think I saw the green light ahead.  But I don't know.  I've been working late every day for a month, and all I was thinking about was going home and going to bed."  Backup gets there, they talk it over, tell me to go home and go to bed.

Point being, being tired and running on autopilot can lead you to drive through a read light into cross traffic.  It's not inconceivable that someone could end up at the wrong apartment door thinking it's her own, even with brightly lit apartment numbers (not as bright as that big red light I ran).

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, CowboyFred said:

Oh I completely get you.  Mine was a business building so not sure how the apartment complex would monitor it. I’m guessing like someone mentioned up thread about keeping track of maintenance entering different units.

Yeah and I could definitely see that. I'd think their pass key would be tagged to register, but not the renters.

[Gene Parmesan 4064]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

 

This isn't reasonable doubt, though. Her story is starting to require so many specific and unusual possibilities that it is quickly losing any reasonable basis for belief. I mean it's also possible that an alien was behind Jean and just about to slit his throat and she fired trying to save him but the alien was so fast and strong that it moved Jean's body into the path of the oncoming bullet. But that's also not reasonable.

I don't think tuning out a red mat is the same as an alien intervention, but carry on.

[Huckleberry 34644]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Okay, here's something new -- Brisket cutting the cop some slack (I'm NOT concluding that her story is true -- I'm just saying that it's plausible).

A few years ago, I was working long hours on a case for weeks on end.  I'm driving home one night at 9:30, and I was regularly working that late.  I'm at a red light, at the front of the line.  Cars next to me, INCLUDING a cop.  Cars crossing the intersection in front of me.  In my field of vision ahead, a light an intersection ahead turned green.  I go.  Right through a red light.  Right into cross traffic (which fortunately, wasn't going so fast that they couldn't slow down or steer around me).  I realized what I was doing when I was well into the intersection and cars are coming at me.  I look in my rearview mirror, and I can see the cop through his windshield, just staring at me with his mouth open.  I went ahead and maneuvered to the left to turn into a parking lot to wait for him (he turned on his lights by then).

He comes to my window, clearly expecting a drunk.  Pause..."man....what happened back there?"  "Officer, I have no idea.  I'm really, really tired.  I think I saw the green light ahead.  But I don't know.  I've been working late every day for a month, and all I was thinking about was going home and going to bed."  Backup gets there, they talk it over, tell me to go home and go to bed.

Point being, being tired and running on autopilot can lead you to drive through a read light into cross traffic.  It's not inconceivable that someone could end up at the wrong apartment door thinking it's her own, even with brightly lit apartment numbers (not as bright as that big red light I ran).

Did you draw a weapon and start firing at the cross traffic?

Also, your example is another based on routine. You're spaced out, you catch green light in your field of vision, other cars start moving, you go. That is not the same as multiple things being different than your routine.

Edited September 14, 2018 by Huckleberry
Forgot to quote

[Chewbacca 7830]

17 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

SIAP.... The source tends to be slanted, but there it is....

 

Was just coming here to post this.  

[CowboyFred 1162]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah and I could definitely see that. I'd think their pass key would be tagged to register, but not the renters.

That would make perfect sense.  It’s just a shitty situation all around.

[Reagan1k 3042]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

Did you draw a weapon and start firing at the cross traffic?

Also, your example is another based on routine. You're spaced out, you catch green light in your field of vision, other cars start moving, you go. That is not the same as multiple things being different than your routine.

I don't think anyone is questioning that she fucked up the second she put her hand on her weapon, regardless of the circumstances.....The question some of us are batting back and forth is could you be zoned out enough to go to the wrong apartment and either enter an ajar door, or fuck with it enough to have the rightful occupant confront you there.

That's the discussion that takes it from something premeditated (pissed by noise) to something accidental, but still criminal. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

There are way too many things needed for her story to make sense. 

She missed the wrong floor. 

She missed the red mat

She missed the bright apartment number light 

She missed the key coming up red and not green

Even if you believe all that, and believe she came to the wrong door by accident, then you have to go further and believe the door was left ajar. A door that automatically closes and locks. 

Now with witnesses claiming they heard her screaming for him to open up...and her past noise complaints, maybe, just maybe we should believe she went to that apartment on purpose knowing it wasn’t her apartment. 

[Brisketexan 106893]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Did you draw a weapon and start firing at the cross traffic?

Also, your example is another based on routine. You're spaced out, you catch green light in your field of vision, other cars start moving, you go. That is not the same as multiple things being different than your routine.

Understand that I am ONLY analogizing to the part of her story that gets her to the wrong door, and mistaking it as hers.

What she did AFTER that involved purposeful acts (shooting him), and of course are part of the ultimate inquiry here.  I'm pointing out only one thing: it's not implausible for her to have ended up at his door, thinking it was hers.  And I don't think this was entirely different than her routine.  It seems like she followed her general routine (the parking level is a red-herring, as they aren't reserved spaces -- her only routine is "park in an open space"), until she got off on the wrong floor and went to the wrong apartment, all of which are analogous to my final departure from routine -- driving through the intersection when the light was red instead of green.

Her decision AFTER that has its own criminal culpability.  It's as if I decided to run from the cop instead of immediately pulling over.  I messed up, realized I messed up, and dialed everything way down so everyone would stay safe.  She, umm, did not.

[AbeFroman 3113]

He was up there getting his island rasta vibe on, and she was like No way Mon, Bang Bang

[C-Man 27779]

1 hour ago, miguelito said:

When it's a jar!

(My mom's favorite clean joke)

She's a jar
With a heavy lid
My pop quiz kid

[Brisketexan 106893]

1 minute ago, Reagan1k said:

That's the discussion that takes it from something premeditated (pissed by noise) to something accidental, but still criminal. 

And I think that is a fact question that will need to be sorted out.  We'll need evidence of what people heard, whether there was really history (recent noise complaint). etc.

To go with my analogy, if another driver came forward and said "yeah, I saw Brisket in an argument with another driver 3 blocks ago, and he chased him, but lost him when the intersection went red....but then he ran straight through the light and was on the guy's tail again," that sould put the lie to my story of "I zoned out and accidentally ran the light."

We'll find out if other evidence puts a lie to the cop's story.

BUT....it won't matter.  Because in the end, she was defending herself against a giant, drug-crazed black man who wouldn't obey her lawful orders.

[TwiceHorn 32078]

10 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

Certainly no lawyer, but I was just assuming there are levels of murder charges and cold blooded would be the harshest in my mind.  That's likely not how it works and I am an idiot.

Didn't mean to shit on you, but yes, there are various levels of homicide in Texas.  Only one level is called murder and all it requires is intentional killing or intent to harm and killing.  It's a little startling.  But the sentencing range is broad.

[Gene Parmesan 4064]

3 minutes ago, Reagan1k said:

I don't think anyone is questioning that she fucked up the second she put her hand on her weapon, regardless of the circumstances.....The question some of us are batting back and forth is could you be zoned out enough to go to the wrong apartment and either enter an ajar door, or fuck with it enough to have the rightful occupant confront you there.

That's the discussion that takes it from something premeditated (pissed by noise) to something accidental, but still criminal. 

This is where I am, and even if her story is 100% true I still believe it's a crime worthy of jail.

[hayden_horn 11402]

you ever go to the wrong hotel room? i have. recently, in fact. inserted the key, light went red. inserted it again, light went red and a voice from within hollered "i think you've got the wrong room. i stepped back, looked at the room number. shit. 803 instead of 805. full disclosure, i was coming back from a drinks reception, so all the faculties weren't facultying properly. i mumbled an apology, and moved one door over, and opened my door. what i didn't do was repeatedly knock on the wrong door demanding to be let in. because that makes no sense at all. the moment the scary black man opened the door, a normal person takes a step back, takes stock of the situation, and realizes, fuck, i'm on the fourth floor instead of the third. oh, shit, how could i have missed this bright red welcome mat UPON WHICH I STOOD to knock on the door? then they mumble an apology and shuffle off to the stairs or elevator.

that's where her story begins to fall apart. the apartment numbers are not subtle. 

[C-Man 27779]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

The more important part of that information is that it discredits Guyger's entire story. If she is claiming the door was slightly open but that's not possible then her credibility is toast. Now to be fair, it still possible it was propped open but that just got a lot more unlikely. It's also the first time I've seen the bright apartment number display reported on, which seems like a big enough deal that I'm surprised it hadn't been mentioned before.

I would think any door would be able to be kept ajar if the tenant wanted it to be. Do the same sources say it automatically locks when it closes? Can the tenant choose to have it shot and then 'unlock' from the inside so somebody can just open it when they get there? Here's the thing -- if the door is ajar, I find her "accidentally" going to the wrong door hard to believe because the first thing I'm going to do when I return to my apartment and find it open -- knowing there's not a chance I left it either ajar or unlocked is to look at the brightly-lit number on the side of the door. That's when you see the '4' instead of the '3' and curse under your breath and go down to your apartment downstairs.

[Huckleberry 34644]

2 minutes ago, Reagan1k said:

I don't think anyone is questioning that she fucked up the second she put her hand on her weapon, regardless of the circumstances.....The question some of us are batting back and forth is could you be zoned out enough to go to the wrong apartment and either enter an ajar door, or fuck with it enough to have the rightful occupant confront you there.

That's the discussion that takes it from something premeditated (pissed by noise) to something accidental, but still criminal. 

TwiceHorn has posted the relevant Texas statutes multiple times. Premeditation exists in television shows you've watched but has nothing to do with the Texas legal definition of murder. The only thing lack of premeditation might do is lower the murder from a first degree to a second degree felony per 19.02(d).

Furthermore, the way I read the Texas self defense statutes, it should not be a qualifying defense for Guyger. There's a lot in here that says to me that Guyger's use of force can not be justified, but also that if Jean had used force against Guyger it would have been justified even though she was "in full uniform" as the cops tried to remind everyone a dozen times.

Sec. 9.32.  DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.  (a)  A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1)  if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

...

Sec. 9.31.  SELF-DEFENSE.  (a)  Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.  The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1)  knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A)  unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B)  unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C)  was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2)  did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3)  was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b)  The use of force against another is not justified:

(1)  in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2)  to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3)  if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4)  if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A)  the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter;  and

(B)  the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor;  or

(5)  if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A)  carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02;  or

(B)  possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c)  The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1)  if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;  and

(2)  when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d)  The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

(e)  A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f)  For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

 

[Gene Parmesan 4064]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Didn't mean to shit on you, but yes, there are various levels of homicide in Texas.  Only one level is called murder and all it requires is intentional killing or intent to harm and killing.  It's a little startling.  But the sentencing range is broad.

I've heard that the manslaughter charge actually presents a tougher defense for her because she wouldn't have a castle doctrine defense vs the murder charge.  Is that true?

[TwiceHorn 32078]

8 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

you ever go to the wrong hotel room? i have. recently, in fact. inserted the key, light went red. inserted it again, light went red and a voice from within hollered "i think you've got the wrong room. i stepped back, looked at the room number. shit. 803 instead of 805. full disclosure, i was coming back from a drinks reception, so all the faculties weren't facultying properly. i mumbled an apology, and moved one door over, and opened my door. what i didn't do was repeatedly knock on the wrong door demanding to be let in. because that makes no sense at all. the moment the scary black man opened the door, a normal person takes a step back, takes stock of the situation, and realizes, fuck, i'm on the fourth floor instead of the third. oh, shit, how could i have missed this bright red welcome mat UPON WHICH I STOOD to knock on the door? then they mumble an apology and shuffle off to the stairs or elevator.

that's where her story begins to fall apart. the apartment numbers are not subtle. 

They aren't but they are curiously far from the doors.  I had noticed them in other photos and videos (you can't even see the number in those because of the lighting), and wondered wtf they were.  Just oddball sconces sitting out in the hall.

[C-Man 27779]

37 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

SIAP.... The source tends to be slanted, but there it is....

 

 

43 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

The red mat seems irrelevant to me.  Pretty easy to not look at the ground when you're going through the routine motions of walking down a hall and getting your key out.  The "snap out of it" moment should come when your key doesn't work.  When it doesn't work, the first thing you would do is double check the unit number rather than pound on the door.  When you see its wrong, you would sheepishly walk away.

I think the whole "wrong apartment" an even "just got home" part might be made up.

1) Long shifts so she's often tired.

2) Existing noise complaints so he's interrupted her sleep before.

3) Maybe she has a hard time sleeping anyway because of shift work.

So maybe she went home, was actually exhausted, heard him making noise, went upstairs to tell him to be quieter, banged on his door to open up, he opens it and tells her to fuck off, she gets frustrated and shoots him.

Been wondering about the same scenario, Fondren. It checks a bunch of boxes.

[Flaming Moderate 112]

19 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Did you draw a weapon and start firing at the cross traffic?

Also, your example is another based on routine. You're spaced out, you catch green light in your field of vision, other cars start moving, you go. That is not the same as multiple things being different than your routine.

That's where I land. I excuse her mistake and his reaction. What (absent other information) will never make sense to me is why is your first response to shoot vs. the myriad other options. BTW - this goes for myriad "on the job" cop shootings that are WAY WAY WAY too trigger happy. I guess that does lead down an unexpected path:
- She says, "I'm a cop, I have a gun, get out of her."
- His only rational response is, "Bitch, this is my house. WTF are you doing?"

- She likely doesn't immediately go, "I don't remember that vase. Am I in the wrong place."

Regardless, shoot first, ask questions later is not a good M.O.

[hayden_horn 11402]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

They aren't but they are curiously far from the doors.  I had noticed them in other photos and videos (you can't even see the number in those because of the lighting), and wondered wtf they were.  Just oddball sconces sitting out in the hall.

you're doing it again.

just kidding. sort of.

she knows where to check the apartment number. she knows because she lives there.

[TwiceHorn 32078]

1 minute ago, Gene Parmesan said:

I've heard that the manslaughter charge actually presents a tougher defense for her because she wouldn't have a castle doctrine defense vs the murder charge.  Is that true?

Self-defense in Texas mostly assumes that the force used in defending oneself was intentional, both as to the act and as to the harm or potential harm inflicted.

Manslaughter is "recklessly" causing a death, which is behavior worse than simple carelessness.  I'm not really sure you can shoehorn self defense into a manslaughter charge.

[Gene Parmesan 4064]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

TwiceHorn has posted the relevant Texas statutes multiple times. Premeditation exists in television shows you've watched but has nothing to do with the Texas legal definition of murder. The only thing lack of premeditation might do is lower the murder from a first degree to a second degree felony per 19.02(d).

Furthermore, the way I read the Texas self defense statutes, it should not be a qualifying defense for Guyger. There's a lot in here that says to me that Guyger's use of force can not be justified, but also that if Jean had used force against Guyger it would have been justified even though she was "in full uniform" as the cops tried to remind everyone a dozen times.

 

 

Yes Twicehorn schooled me on how the charges worked, and I agree that this should be a murder charge regardless.  I mainly just arguing on how big of a piece of shit she is.  Is she a real big piece of shit who flat out coldblooded murdered the dude, or a regular sized one who tragically murdered him.

[TwiceHorn 32078]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

you're doing it again.

just kidding. sort of.

she knows where to check the apartment number. she knows because she lives there.

Well it's not quite the same as the number right on the door in front of your eyes. Why would you check an apartment number three feet off to the left if you think you are at the right apartment?

[Brisketexan 106893]

1 minute ago, Flaming Moderate said:

That's where I land. I excuse her mistake and his reaction. What (absent other information) will never make sense to me is why is your first response to shoot vs. the myriad other options. BTW - this goes for myriad "on the job" cop shootings that are WAY WAY WAY too trigger happy. I guess that does lead down an unexpected path:
- She says, "I'm a cop, I have a gun, get out of her."
- His only rational response is, "Bitch, this is my house. WTF are you doing?"

- She likely doesn't immediately go, "I don't remember that vase. Am I in the wrong place."

Regardless, shoot first, ask questions later is not a good M.O.

This.  Practically speaking, THIS should be her BEST case scenario....which should still result in her going to prison.

Best case scenario is that she took zero time to evaluate the situation and went right to lethal force.

Worst case is, of course, that there was history (noise complaint, etc.) and she went to his apartment ON PURPOSE.

 

Of course, what will ACTUALLY happen at trial: she was tired from all of the protecting and serving, and a crazed drug-fueled black man answered the door, and she legitimately feared for her life and had no choice, and is acquitted.

[Brisketexan 106893]

1 minute ago, Gene Parmesan said:

Is she a real big piece of shit who flat out coldblooded murdered the dude, or a regular sized one who tragically murdered him.

Perfect distillation of what SHOULD be the only real fact question at trial.

But see my observation above -- it won't be.  The victim will be tried and convicted, and she'll walk.

[TwiceHorn 32078]

6 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

Yes Twicehorn schooled me on how the charges worked, and I agree that this should be a murder charge regardless.  I mainly just arguing on how big of a piece of shit she is.  Is she a real big piece of shit who flat out coldblooded murdered the dude, or a regular sized one who tragically murdered him.

I don't do crimes, but I smell what you are stepping in.  It seems like there ought to be some "lesser charge" for semi-accidental killings like this one (assuming the facts in her favor).  But, where it comes in isn't with the "label," it's the sentence. 

First degree is 5-99

Second degree is 2-20

Third degree is 2-10.

Murder is first degree by default and second if in response to sudden passion provoked by adequate cause.  Manslaughter is second degree.

Edited September 14, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Reagan1k 3042]

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

TwiceHorn has posted the relevant Texas statutes multiple times. Premeditation exists in television shows you've watched but has nothing to do with the Texas legal definition of murder. The only thing lack of premeditation might do is lower the murder from a first degree to a second degree felony per 19.02(d).

Agreed - My use of the word premeditated in this context was centered around her instigating a confrontation (she meant to be at HIS door) vs. an accidental confrontation where she lost her damn mind......Intentional might have been a better choice of words so as not to run afoul of or confuse the issue as it related to statutes and plausible criminal charges that can be filed.

[Fozzz 152]

lmao of course she is one of these kind of shitheads

 

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by Fozzz

[High Plains Drifter 11187]

3 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Can't say I like that Big Brother like info gathering.

This is world we live in.

[Pato del Muerto 53495]

27 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Understand that I am ONLY analogizing to the part of her story that gets her to the wrong door, and mistaking it as hers.

What she did AFTER that involved purposeful acts (shooting him), and of course are part of the ultimate inquiry here.  I'm pointing out only one thing: it's not implausible for her to have ended up at his door, thinking it was hers.  And I don't think this was entirely different than her routine.  It seems like she followed her general routine (the parking level is a red-herring, as they aren't reserved spaces -- her only routine is "park in an open space"), until she got off on the wrong floor and went to the wrong apartment, all of which are analogous to my final departure from routine -- driving through the intersection when the light was red instead of green.

Her decision AFTER that has its own criminal culpability.  It's as if I decided to run from the cop instead of immediately pulling over.  I messed up, realized I messed up, and dialed everything way down so everyone would stay safe.  She, umm, did not.

If you argue that she’s in such a mental state as to not perceive all that stuff leading up to the shooting, how can you then argue that her mental state was sufficient for her to be making correct decisions in regard to threat assessment and weapon discharge?

wouldnt that lead to basically a temporary insanity finding, or whatever niche Texas calls that?

case closed, sentenced to time slept. 

Edited September 14, 2018 by Pato del Muerto

[hayden_horn 11402]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well it's not quite the same as the number right on the door in front of your eyes. Why would you check an apartment number three feet off to the left if you think you are at the right apartment?

because your key isn't working, and there's somebody in there, and where did this huge red doormat come from?

you stop and take a moment to figure out what is wrong. you don't just start blasting.

[El Diablo 4232]

12 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

you're doing it again.

just kidding. sort of.

she knows where to check the apartment number. she knows because she lives there.

She'd just spent 212 hours looking at house numbers while serving warrants, they just kind of all run together after about hour # 140.

[rantanamo 143]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well it's not quite the same as the number right on the door in front of your eyes. Why would you check an apartment number three feet off to the left if you think you are at the right apartment?

Because she lives there and knows where the numbers are.

[po elvis 2141]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Perfect distillation of what SHOULD be the only real fact question at trial.

But see my observation above -- it won't be.  The victim will be tried and convicted, and she'll walk.

i predict you are wrong.

[TwiceHorn 32078]

Also the whole "premeditated" or "with malice aforethought" isn't just a creature of TV.  It was the defining characteristic of "common law murder," which was how most murder was defined before states started enacting penal codes, or criminal statutes.  A lot of states still have "premeditation" or "malice aforethought" in their murder statutes.  They just have a broader spectrum of homicide crimes and corresponding punishments.  Texas keeps it simple, for the most part.

[Fozzz 152]

what a fucking psychopath

 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 32078]

6 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

because your key isn't working, and there's somebody in there, and where did this huge red doormat come from?

you stop and take a moment to figure out what is wrong. you don't just start blasting.

I don't disagree with that, at all, I just happen to think that the key not working and the doormat, principally the key, cause you to lean over and look at the number rather than you see the number first, particularly where that one is located.

If the apartment number were spang in the middle of the door, she would have almost no excuse.

[El Diablo 4232]

spang?

[TwiceHorn 32078]

4 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

what a fucking psychopath

 

 

 

She's starting to look like a piece of shit.  Given that she's already shot someone, she should know that you don't joke around about that kind of shit.  Fucking GI Joe respect mah authoritah shit.

Edited September 14, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 32078]

1 minute ago, El Diablo said:

spang?

You aint from round here are ya?

[El Diablo 4232]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

You aint from round here are ya?

Lol, born and raised but that's a new one on me. Smack dab?

[Brisketexan 106893]

11 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

If you argue that she’s in such a mental state as to not perceive all that stuff leading up to the shooting, how can you then argue that her mental state was sufficient for her to be making correct decisions in regard to threat assessment and weapon discharge?

wouldnt that lead to basically a temporary insanity finding, or whatever niche Texas calls that?

case closed, sentenced to time slept. 

Yeah, temporary insanity -- for all practical purposes -- ain't a thing in Texas.

And, once an event jars you into using your senses (me seeing cars coming at me, her seeing a random dude open the door to "her" apartment), you certainly have enough faculties to decide what to do next.

7 minutes ago, po elvis said:

i predict you are wrong.

I genuinely hope that I am.  Seriously, it would be much better for society, and the city of Dallas in particular, if justice is served in this case.  It is very, very important that cops are not above the law.  I do not believe that is our current reality.  I do hope that I'm wrong, at the very least in this case I do.

[TwiceHorn 32078]

Just now, El Diablo said:

Lol, born and raised but that's a new one on me. Smack dab?

Synonym.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Self-defense in Texas mostly assumes that the force used in defending oneself was intentional, both as to the act and as to the harm or potential harm inflicted.

Manslaughter is "recklessly" causing a death, which is behavior worse than simple carelessness.  I'm not really sure you can shoehorn self defense into a manslaughter charge.

How would self defense even work in this case?  Texas has the castle doctrine.  She illegally entered his place of residence while he was there.  He has a right to use deadly force against her.  So as a trespasser, what right to self defense does she have if he can legally kill her?  I know there is plenty of gray area between him doing nothing and him killing her, like sexual assault, where she could legitimately need to defend herself even if she was the intruder.  But that isn't the case here.

[po elvis 2141]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah, temporary insanity -- for all practical purposes -- ain't a thing in Texas.

And, once an event jars you into using your senses (me seeing cars coming at me, her seeing a random dude open the door to "her" apartment), you certainly have enough faculties to decide what to do next.

I genuinely hope that I am.  Seriously, it would be much better for society, and the city of Dallas in particular, if justice is served in this case.  It is very, very important that cops are not above the law.  I do not believe that is our current reality.  I do hope that I'm wrong, at the very least in this case I do.

i think there it too much media on this and her story is so ridiculous. i can't see the facts ending up matching her story. i do agree that the defense lawyer will try and make the victim look like the bad guy though.

[BurntOrange&White 41859]

Why in the fuck is DPD treating the victim like a suspect?

[Gene Parmesan 4064]

Even if the facts match her story it's still a crime.  She'll likely be convicted but the sentencing will be light.  The Balch Springs guy only got 15 years and his actions were far more heinous.