Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Posted

Whoa, whoa, whoa, did you forget the dead guy is black and the cop is a white lady?  Dallas isn't burning one way or the other.

But seriously, there should be riots if this dumb bitch walks, but I have little faith that this even moves the needle for Dallas residents.  Most will probably be more pissed about their taxes paying the eventual civil settlement than whether any justice or lack thereof is achieved in criminal court.

Posted
6 minutes ago, BBQ2Bayou said:

A million people go to that rodeo? Is that for real? 

The State Fair?  It's kind of a big deal.  And it is true that an already undermanned DPD is  spread thin by having to cover the Fair, at no extra cost to the Fair.

It is also pretty unusual for something to go to trial on a first setting with no continuances at all.  But now that the jury is picked, I don't see any delay coming.

Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The State Fair?  It's kind of a big deal.  And it is true that an already undermanned DPD is  spread thin by having to cover the Fair, at no extra cost to the Fair.

It is also pretty unusual for something to go to trial on a first setting with no continuances at all.  But now that the jury is picked, I don't see any delay coming.

Yeah, I looked it up after I asked. 2.2 million or something a year. I had no idea. Was thinking a couple hundred thousand. Carry on with regularly scheduled dark man killing. 

Posted
On 8/20/2019 at 11:41 AM, 4th and 5 said:

 

From day one I've been posting here that these are the issues the defense will bring up and how the case will be won (or lost).

Dr. Marc Green is a preeminent authority on vision, perception and reaction time. I have Dr. Green's book sitting on my conference room table. I've read it from cover to cover. 

If I could hire one expert on this case, it would be Dr. Green. 

Here is his website: http://www.visualexpert.com/

Check out some of his articles, they are absolutely fascinating: http://www.visualexpert.com/why.html

I think if many of you read this information, your opinion would be different. Or at least based on science.

 

 

 

The Dr. Green stuff is interesting. It looks like he does civil work too but I've never run into him. The guy I always used to see was Dr. Charles Weaver from Baylor, affectionately known as the Dream Weaver (kidding, the man is an imbecile). He would come in and say that the witness couldn't possibly remember XYZ because it happened too long ago etc. and then basically tell the jury that they can't rely on that witness' testimony. We would get him struck in every case, to the point that it was embarrassing for the other side to even designate him. Thujone was the leader in this, he put together an amazing motion to strike going through all the times Dream Weaver was struck around the country and after that I don't remember seeing him again. 

I'd be curious to see how often Green gets struck in criminal cases. Although I don't know if his testimony is as egregious as Dream Weavers. But generally speaking, in the civil context, I think these memory/visual experts are bullshit. The weight and credibility of witness testimony is for the jury to decide. But in a criminal context I'm not so sure since it's like freedom and lives and shit and not money. 

Posted
1 hour ago, BBQ2Bayou said:

Yeah, I looked it up after I asked. 2.2 million or something a year. I had no idea. Was thinking a couple hundred thousand. Carry on with regularly scheduled dark man killing. 

There’s a couple hundred thousand on the second Saturday of October.

Posted (edited)

Postponing the murder trial of an innocent black man, by a white cop...so that a bunch of gun-owning white people can eat fried foods at the State Fair whilst protected by that same Police Department, in the middle of a black neighborhood, so those same Cops can get more money?  

Yeah, did anybody at that police union take a look this story before they marched out there in front of the press pool?  It's impossible they're this stupid .

Edited by Lobo
Posted
2 hours ago, hornbri said:

I see the verdict coming down the Friday before OU and we have to deal the potential riots. 

Lee Harvey's gonna be lit.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
5 hours ago, hornbri said:

I see the verdict coming down the Friday before OU and we have to deal the potential riots. 

I wouldn't want to riot with that many liquored-up Okies in town. 

  • Like 1
Posted

Trial starting tomorrow morning with opening statements at 9am. Saying it will last most likely a week but maybe 2 weeks. About time this shit is starting.

If she gets found guilty, how long does an appeal get to be heard?

Posted
19 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

Trial starting tomorrow morning with opening statements at 9am. Saying it will last most likely a week but maybe 2 weeks. About time this shit is starting.

If she gets found guilty, how long does an appeal get to be heard?

Getting to trial in a year is pretty swift, although criminal trials go faster than civil.  An appeal will take about a year and a half.

Posted

Thanks for the link Vic

Judge going over motions with the attorneys. Discussion about sleep deprivation and what will be allowed to be discussed during the trial. Some interesting back and forth about expert testimony.

  • Like 1
Posted

I heard an attorney mentioning a text from Guyger to someone right after the incident stating “I fucked up”.

Don’t think we’ve heard about any of her communications yet other than a little of the 911 call she made.

They are arguing about the extraction of her cell phone information and whether it can be introduced to the jury. Still haven’t brought the jury in and started with opening statements. This seems like it could go on for awhile.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Y'all know where I stand.  Might as well re-title this thread "Countdown to acquittal....."

 

I'm gonna have to disagree with your police work there, Lou. I think she does time. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, bigup2dahorns said:

I heard an attorney mentioning a text from Guyger to someone right after the incident stating “I fucked up”.

Don’t think we’ve heard about any of her communications yet other than a little of the 911 call she made.

They are arguing about the extraction of her cell phone information and whether it can be introduced to the jury. Still haven’t brought the jury in and started with opening statements. This seems like it could go on for awhile.

Caught a little of it before I head to bed. I did hear a prosecutor state they are not alleging any prior relationship between the defendant and the complainant, so I guess those theories can be put to rest finally. 

Posted (edited)

Alright... Now we're getting into horny snapchats.  Give the people what they want! 

Also, Guyger's attorney looks like he has had a hotdog surgically implanted in the back of his head. 

Edited by Continental Op
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)

Are they going to be allowed to smear the deceased as a druggie? Because anyone who smokes pot is clearly evil and deserves death (especially if that particular individual is of a certain hue).

Edited by 'stache
Posted
44 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

Are you able to be released on bond when filing an appeal after a guilty conviction? 

Yes.  Up to the judge, but pretty likely, I think.  Especially if the appeal is strong, as in judge made a tough decision that might be reversible and doesn't want to stick someone in jail for 18 months if s/he made a mistake.

  • Like 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Continental Op said:

Alright... Now we're getting into horny snapchats.  Give the people what they want! 

Also, Guyger's attorney looks like he has had a hotdog surgically implanted in the back of his head. 

I haven't been able to watch much this morning. More details on horny snapchats?

Posted

There was just an offhand mention of "sexually explicit snapchats" that the prosecution seems to believe will put the lie to the "OMG I was so sleep deprived and all I wanted to do was get home!" narrative the defense wants to spin since it sounds like Guyger and another cop were planning to meet up later that night. 

  • Like 3
Posted
Are they going to be allowed to smear the deceased as a druggie? Because anyone who smokes pot is clearly evil and deserves death (especially if that particular individual is of a certain hue).


Some discussion about the weed use now . . .
Posted
16 minutes ago, Continental Op said:

There was just an offhand mention of "sexually explicit snapchats" that the prosecution seems to believe will put the lie to the "OMG I was so sleep deprived and all I wanted to do was get home!" narrative the defense wants to spin since it sounds like Guyger and another cop were planning to meet up later that night. 

I think we all can relate to being horny even when sleep deprived. Case dismissed.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Posted

I haven’t heard all of the discussions so far but didn’t hear any objections yet about the weed info on this case. Sounds like it will absolutely be a part of this case, from both sides. The prosecution already previewed a point they will make that Guyger should have recognized that the apartment smelled of weed, and this is another reason why she should have known that she was not inside her unit.

Posted
Is this a big deal? DA violated the gag order? Move for mistrial? 


I didn’t catch all that discussion but they are now taking a break so the judge can decide. She (the judge) didn’t look happy.

The Dallas DA is an idiot so who knows how this will go.
Posted

I watched the video and it really didn't say much and no idea when he made those comments. Seemed like he didn't say anything that would affect the trial but I am no lawdog.

Posted
3 minutes ago, bigup2dahorns said:

 


I didn’t catch all that discussion but they are now taking a break so the judge can decide. She (the judge) didn’t look happy.

The Dallas DA is an idiot so who knows how this will go.

 

John Creuzot is not an idiot, if that's to whom you refer.

Posted

Violation of a gag order is a solid reason to get your lawdog peepee whacked.  It's not usually a reason to grant a mistrial, particularly when a jury has been selected and a motion to transfer venue denied.

The only way it would be grounds for a mistrial is the violation so tainted the jury/jury pool that it made a fair trial impossible.

Posted
10 minutes ago, bigup2dahorns said:

I haven’t heard all of the discussions so far but didn’t hear any objections yet about the weed info on this case. Sounds like it will absolutely be a part of this case, from both sides. The prosecution already previewed a point they will make that Guyger should have recognized that the apartment smelled of weed, and this is another reason why she should have known that she was not inside her unit.

That's actually a pretty strong point.  Well-played.

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Violation of a gag order is a solid reason to get your lawdog peepee whacked.  It's not usually a reason to grant a mistrial, particularly when a jury has been selected and a motion to transfer venue denied.

The only way it would be grounds for a mistrial is the violation so tainted the jury/jury pool that it made a fair trial impossible.

Yeah, the mistrial would have to be based on an incurable tainting of the jury pool, not a mere technical violation of the gag order.  The judge would most likely sternly warn all counsel to STFU, I won't warn you again, and be done with it.

Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

That's actually a pretty strong point.  Well-played.

Yeah, the mistrial would have to be based on an incurable tainting of the jury pool, not a mere technical violation of the gag order.  The judge would most likely sternly warn all counsel to STFU, I won't warn you again, and be done with it.

Yeah that video posted above seems pretty tame as far as not being an 'incurable tainting of the jury' pool, but more a technical violation of gag order.  Sounds like he was just differentiating the reasons why this is a murder trial and not a manslaughter 1 trial.  


But he most certainly be ordered to STFU going forward.  But I'm not an attorney, and I stayed at my own house last night.  

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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



×
×
  • Create New...