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

[TwiceHorn 31274]

13 minutes ago, Fuck Tim Beck said:

This may have been addressed way back when, but is there a chance the went with the higher charge just to make this a dog and pony show with the intention of letting her walk because shes a cop? 

"Well, we tried, what more do you people want?" 

No, not really.  You really have to stretch to make this fit under manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide.  A conviction on those might not survive appeal.

[TXSooner518 2432]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, not really.  You really have to stretch to make this fit under manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide.  A conviction on those might not survive appeal.

Ehhhhhhhhh.  "A person commits [manslaughter] if he recklessly causes the death of an individual."  The combination of not checking what floor you are on in an OMG SO CONFUSING apartment complex plus shooting to kill with no evidence of threat to your life plus ability to retreat certainly can be considered reckless or criminally negligent. It can be argued against also, but no chance it is so deficient it is tossed on appeal.

As I stated, it does also meet the definition of murder, but the argument that these facts absolutely can't be manslaughter or CNH doesn't hold water to me.

EDIT to add: I know for tort law, "reasonableness" standard is based on the actor. If that also applies to crim law, reasonable behavior for her is colored by her training as a police officer, access to police radio, etc.

Edited September 24, 2019 by TXSooner518

[hookem17 485]

They’re showing the body cam footage. The doormat in the hallway was clearly visible and almost neon red looking. Inside, there was a lot of shit on the counter, an ironing board out in the middle of the room, and a series of pictures hanging behind the couch. Seems like things a reasonable person could pick up on. 

[BigDHornfan 6541]

If the lights were on.  Who knows.  Has that come out at all?

[hayden_horn 11360]

Just now, BigDHornfan said:

If the lights were on.  Who knows.  Has that come out at all?

i think (it's been awhile) that the lights were off or dim. tv was on, dude was watching a football game. also had his laptop up and running, doing a little midnight oil for work. things a burglar does, you know.

[TwiceHorn 31274]

10 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Ehhhhhhhhh.  "A person commits [manslaughter] if he recklessly causes the death of an individual."  The combination of not checking what floor you are on in an OMG SO CONFUSING apartment complex plus shooting to kill with no evidence of threat to your life plus ability to retreat certainly can be considered reckless or criminally negligent. It can be argued against also, but no chance it is so deficient it is tossed on appeal.

As I stated, it does also meet the definition of murder, but the argument that these facts absolutely can't be manslaughter or CNH doesn't hold water to me.

EDIT to add: I know for tort law, "reasonableness" standard is based on the actor. If that also applies to crim law, reasonable behavior for her is colored by her training as a police officer, access to police radio, etc.

Possibly, yes.  I'm not even sure if manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide are lesser included offenses.  If so, the state could change course and ask for instructions.

[DigglerontheHoof 21061]

She's guilty as sin but will walk.  I'd also be willing to bet she's a cop somewhere before the end of 2020.

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

idk, her fellow officers don't seem to be trying to cover for her in their testimony so far.  In fact, it seems like they're trying to distance themselves from her, imho.

[Huckleberry 32701]

I'm in kind of an "ends justify the means" frame of mind on this one. I do admit that it's possible that in the moment she thought it was her apartment. And that it's possible she felt like her life was in danger. And so this isn't murder, etc.

But in that case she sure as shit should not be a law enforcement officer for any agency whatsoever. Either she's guilty and deserves to be convicted or she's not guilty and should never be a cop which would only be guaranteed by a guilty verdict. So I want her convicted either way, I guess. Might not be the legally right thing to wish for, but it sure seems like the better result for society in general in this case.

[Junior Miller 1502]

So what if she didn't walk in intending to kill the guy? I'm sure the guy texting while driving through a school zone who mows down a 10 yr old didn't mean to kill the kid either but he's still getting convicted and a ton of time in prison. 

Mistakes happen. But when you make one you pay the fucking price. Unless you're a white cop and/or white and rich in America. 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Junior Miller

[huge 3788]

I think this case makes for strange bedfellows.  CASTLE DOCTRINE SECOND AMENDMENT people should want to defend her actions as wrongheaded as they are.  It is a constitutional right to blast ass if someone is in your house right?  But many of those people also hate cops and think she should burn.  Some ins and outs and whathaveyous here.

 

Hmmmmmmm

[PilotsError 2282]

Only a complete dipshit would make this a castle doctrine thing.  She wasn't in her castle, most of us concealed carriers are MUCH more cognizant than she was, since we know the laws and how quickly we'd be prosecuted.  

Take your bullshit somewhere else.  

['stache 21773]

How is the red floormat not the end of the case? How can you reasonably believe you're at your apartment when there is a bright red floormat at this apartment and you don't have one? And if there is testimony about people getting confused alot by the parking garage, that just supports the unreasonableness of not taking  a split second to ensure you're on the right floor when you see something out of sorts. I get confused by my parking garage all the time and make an effort to try and remember where I parked. Sometimes I forget, but I know the entire time it's a possibility.

['stache 21773]

I still think that this guy's family had political enemies and someone blackmailed this chick to do their dirty work. They likely agreed to pay her legal fees to try and get off, but if she's convicted, sorry bitch. If you snitch the blackmail material comes out. I just don't see how one can make a mistake like that when there is a red fucking floormat to tell you it's not your floor.

[bschoolprof 6232]

If any of us went to the wrong house and negligently killed someone, we'd be in in prison for some time.  Period.  

 

 

[huge 3788]

8 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

If any of us went to the wrong house and negligently killed someone, we'd be in in prison for some time.  Period.  

 

 

That's the biggest problem I have here, her immediate reaction was to open fire.  Zero to a million miles an hour.  Total negligence.  Nothing in between.

Edited September 24, 2019 by huge

[CHEF DIESEL 126]

8 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I still think that this guy's family had political enemies and someone blackmailed this chick to do their dirty work. They likely agreed to pay her legal fees to try and get off, but if she's convicted, sorry bitch. If you snitch the blackmail material comes out. I just don't see how one can make a mistake like that when there is a red fucking floormat to tell you it's not your floor.

Police union is paying her legal defense and the City of Dallas taxpayers will be on the hook for her civil trial awards to the victim.

[CHEF DIESEL 126]

5 minutes ago, huge said:

That's the biggest problem I have here, her immediate reaction was to open fire.  Zero to a million miles an hour.  Total negligence.  Nothing in between.

Not only that in the bodycam video shown this morning she did nothing to help the victim other than call 911. When the other officers arrived they immediately started full CPR and started rummaging around in the victim's apartment for paper towels and clothes to try and stop the bleeding by applying direct pressure. They kept up CPR the entire time until paramedics arrived. One officer testified when they began CPR that the vicitim still had a pulse. Guyger did none of that other than waving her hands around hysterically saying she was in the wrong apartment.

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

Yeah, I hope the jury is reading that the same way we do.  She (allegedly) made a mistake, but in the moment, she could have taken actions to mitigate the damage she caused, but instead, she goes full hysterical "I THOUGHT IT WAS MY APARTMENT!!1!" while the poor innocent bastard breathes his last breath.

[cattail 112]

The failure to attempt to render any sort of first aid is some cold blooded shit.

[Fuck Tim Beck 3806]

Whaaat? A woman over reacts and goes hysterical? I'm shocked 

[hayden_horn 11360]

21 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

If any of us went to the wrong house and negligently killed someone, we'd be in in prison for some time.  Period.  

 

 

 

19 minutes ago, huge said:

That's the biggest problem I have here, her immediate reaction was to open fire.  Zero to a million miles an hour.  Total negligence.  Nothing in between.

agree with both of these, and with plenty of other posts on this thread.

look, we've all been on autopilot. i've "woken up" on a drive home from work, wondering if that last light i went through was actually green. shit happens. 

however, culpability is still an important element to have when shit goes bad. if i'm on "autopilot" and run over a person, i'm still culpable.

this, however, is a little different than zoning out and hitting a pedestrian on accident. this is the equivalent of seeing a pedestrian jaywalking, and accelerating to hit them because they should not be there. 

she pushes open the door, and shit looks bad. draw your weapon, fine, i can even get with that, but retreat, and cover the door, and fucking communicate. there was no evidence at all that the man was armed and threatening. even if he gets up from the couch and approaches the door, you still cannot shoot him. fuck, our soldiers in foreign, violent theaters of war have a higher standard of engagement than she exercised.

she opens the door, sees the guy, draws her weapon sights him down and blasts him twice. i have no idea if she voiced any commands in the interim, but she shot him across the room. there's no way a normal person does this and isn't thrown under the prison for years. instead she gets three days to get her affairs in order before she's arrested and tested for any impairments. right? does this happen to john q public?

cops should be held to a higher standard, not given a free pass for murder. 

[Vic Mackey 46936]

I think this case makes for strange bedfellows.  CASTLE DOCTRINE SECOND AMENDMENT people should want to defend her actions as wrongheaded as they are.  It is a constitutional right to blast ass if someone is in your house right?  But many of those people also hate cops and think she should burn.  Some ins and outs and whathaveyous here.
 
Hmmmmmmm

But she wasn't in her house. End of story.

[TXSooner518 2432]

Just now, Vic Mackey said:

43 minutes ago, huge said:

I think this case makes for strange bedfellows.  CASTLE DOCTRINE SECOND AMENDMENT people should want to defend her actions as wrongheaded as they are.  It is a constitutional right to blast ass if someone is in your house right?  But many of those people also hate cops and think she should burn.  Some ins and outs and whathaveyous here.
 
Hmmmmmmm

But she wasn't in her house. End of story.

And her belief that she was wasn't reasonable. 

[Vic Mackey 46936]

And her belief that she was wasn't reasonable. 

Wasn't he just sitting on the couch doing some work and watching TV? Unarmed. Not even close to a threat. How on Earth did she just not have her hand on her weapon and ask who he was. A few more exchanges and she would have realized she was not in her house. They could have had a few laughs about it and we would never even know who these people are at all. But her first instinct was to blow him away? Doesn't sit well with me. Especially for a trained police officer. He was no threat to her at all.

[hayden_horn 11360]

4 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

And her belief that she was wasn't reasonable. 

it's the red doormat that's the kicker here. even if you zombie your way to the door, the bright red fucking doormat should register. even if it doesn't visually, because of the mobile in her hand or whatever, she had to STEP ON IT to open the door. once you open the door and things look wrong, you back into the hallway and assess the situation. jesus christ. 

even on the receiving end of this, caution should rule the day. i've had numerous occasions in vegas where someone tries to open my hotel door. i tell them they've got the wrong room, and off they go. the highlight was one year when a female pimp showed up and asked if i had any of her girls in my room after pounding on my door like the goddamn police. 

anyways. all those interactions with no one getting shot.

[hayden_horn 11360]

2 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

8 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

And her belief that she was wasn't reasonable. 

Wasn't he just sitting on the couch doing some work and watching TV? Unarmed. Not even close to a threat. How on Earth did she just not have her hand on her weapon and ask who he was. A few more exchanges and she would have realized she was not in her house. They could have had a few laughs about it and we would never even know who these people are at all. But her first instinct was to blow him away? Doesn't sit well with me. Especially for a trained police officer. He was no threat to her at all.

my thoughts exactly.

[4th and 5 4914]

On 9/22/2019 at 11:51 PM, NeverMarryAStripper said:

She would be locked up for that year and half though, right

Yes

On 9/23/2019 at 9:54 AM, Vic Mackey said:

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

NO. No bond pending appeal for a murder case. She would be in jail the whole time

On 9/23/2019 at 10:40 AM, TwiceHorn said:

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.

No

On 9/23/2019 at 11:08 AM, 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 dumb. This is a split second event. No time to stop and smell the roses. See everything there is to see, etc.

Easy for you guys to Monday morning quarterback though.

22 hours ago, bigup2dahorns said:

Prosecution says that that Jean’s door was not locked and possibly opened (didn’t fully close).

This is huge for the defense

22 hours ago, CHEF DIESEL said:

Really horrible if she did not offer first aid and comfort to the victim in his last moments. Sounds like she was trying to cover her own tracks in the last moments that the victim was struggling to stay alive.

This is not good for the defense. It disturbs me the most but not relevant to self defense, it is what she reasonably believed at the time, not after

21 hours ago, Lobo said:

There is no way in the world a Black man in a middle-class apartment building in the South would get out weed, let alone smoke it, with his fucking door ajar.  Even the highest, most stoned black man is gonna close the door, lock it, close the patio door, close all the vents, put towels down at the bottom of the doors, and breathe through a paper towel roll with a dryer sheet shoved inside it.  This is not the movie "Friday", your honor---where Black men just sit on their patio and smoke to their hearts content with no regard for neighbors, nearby children, or law enforcement.  The victim was completely innocent, not a Chris Trucker charicature.  

Anyway, curious to see how the rest of the day shakes out.  

People do stupid shit all the time. This post is dumb.

21 hours ago, bigup2dahorns said:

Defense saying it’s a confusing apartment building and they have evidence of tenants trying to enter wrong apartment units many times.

Huge for the defense.

21 hours ago, bigup2dahorns said:

Defense says the door locks were defectively installed and sometimes the doors do not fully close.

Huge for the defense. And civil liability for the apartment.

21 hours ago, Bruh Man said:

How many of the jurors do they need to convict and can they convict her on a manslaughter charge? If not, why didn't the city charge her with manslaughter? 

Jury verdicts must be unanimous

And we have been over the appropriateness of the charge for the last year

21 hours ago, bigup2dahorns said:

Defense says once inside his apartment she had tunnel vision on what she thought was the intruder in her place and she didn’t look around a dark apartment to notice any differences between her place and his.

Exactly. This is how it works. It is supported by science.

20 hours ago, bigup2dahorns said:

Defense says Jean was shot 13-15 feet away from the door, per the Texas Rangers investigation and report. Defense says this is evidence of Jean moving from the couch towards her and the door.

We will see.

19 hours ago, Helobious said:

What an unbelievably shitty apartment number display design. What the fuck. FWIW I think this bitch murdered the guy and should rot in prison for many years at least. But damn.

Agreed. The lighting is distracting from the message attempted to be conveyed. 

18 hours ago, Bruh Man said:

Wow...so her boyfriend deleted the text messages too. Unfreakingbelievable...

Not good. 

18 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

They were clearly marked, he punched one, presumably it illuminated, and he still got off on the wrong floor and then went to the wrong room, when presumably all of them were marked, and probably better than than horrid sign depicted above.  Just because there's a sign doesn't mean anyone's paying attention.

Also, I don't think they said everyone's confused all the time.  Just that some residents had made the same mistake.  That's a simple point that makes sense.  Trying to turn it into all residents should be on red alert may make some kind of sense, but it's hard to convey to a jury.

This guy gets it.

17 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, Toby Shook is the biggest name on the defense team, and the chonker bald guy is an appellate specialist (meaning you might expect him to argue motions, but not examine witnesses).  Rogers is fairly well known, but not Shook's caliber, at least by reputation.

It appears, though, that Shook hasn't done any of the witnesses?  Yes? No?

Other guy is Michael Mowla, super smart appellate attorney.

17 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

The text said it was still happening in Feb but there was no evidence as to when it stopped.

Also I think the conduct meets the elements of murder but also could meet the elements of manslaughter. The act of discharging the firearm there could be reckless. She may have taken an intentional act while recklessly believing she had a defense.

Negative. It was an intentional act. We have been over this. You can't claim it was accidental and claim self defense too. Think about how that makes no sense at all.

16 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Fucking spoliation of evidence like a motherfucker.

We call it Tampering With Evidence, a felony

15 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

In that context, it's  . . .  wait for it . . .  obstruction of justice.

see above

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Schulte is an ex-cop, but the burden of proof thing is legit.

It seems that there ought to be a threshold burden of proof for the defendant to assert mistake of fact, and once met, it's the state's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  But it doesn't seem to work that way.

There is not.  

2 hours ago, Lou said:

What does it cost to hire a defense team like she has?

 

A lot

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Probably 100k+ per lawyer.  Higher for Shook.  The police union is paying, though.  And there may be some discounting involved due to the notoriety and novelty of the case.  Reputations might be made here.

Exactly. I'd take this case on a discount just for notoriety alone. And the awesome fact pattern. Cases like this come along once in a career.

But that expert is going to cost her though. He is an all star.

 

1 hour ago, hookem17 said:

They’re showing the body cam footage. The doormat in the hallway was clearly visible and almost neon red looking. Inside, there was a lot of shit on the counter, an ironing board out in the middle of the room, and a series of pictures hanging behind the couch. Seems like things a reasonable person could pick up on. 

Just cause it's there doesn't mean she saw it. Or that if she saw it, it entered her attention.

their expert, Dr. Marc Green will explain all that

1 hour ago, BigDHornfan said:

If the lights were on.  Who knows.  Has that come out at all?

Exactly. Stop assuming.

40 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I still think that this guy's family had political enemies and someone blackmailed this chick to do their dirty work. They likely agreed to pay her legal fees to try and get off, but if she's convicted, sorry bitch. If you snitch the blackmail material comes out. I just don't see how one can make a mistake like that when there is a red fucking floormat to tell you it's not your floor.

This is dumb.

26 minutes ago, CHEF DIESEL said:

Not only that in the bodycam video shown this morning she did nothing to help the victim other than call 911. When the other officers arrived they immediately started full CPR and started rummaging around in the victim's apartment for paper towels and clothes to try and stop the bleeding by applying direct pressure. They kept up CPR the entire time until paramedics arrived. One officer testified when they began CPR that the vicitim still had a pulse. Guyger did none of that other than waving her hands around hysterically saying she was in the wrong apartment.

Bad for her.

22 minutes ago, cattail said:

The failure to attempt to render any sort of first aid is some cold blooded shit.

Indeed it is.

[TXSooner518 2432]

9 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

it's the red doormat that's the kicker here. even if you zombie your way to the door, the bright red fucking doormat should register. even if it doesn't visually, because of the mobile in her hand or whatever, she had to STEP ON IT to open the door. once you open the door and things look wrong, you back into the hallway and assess the situation. jesus christ. 

even on the receiving end of this, caution should rule the day. i've had numerous occasions in vegas where someone tries to open my hotel door. i tell them they've got the wrong room, and off they go. the highlight was one year when a female pimp showed up and asked if i had any of her girls in my room after pounding on my door like the goddamn police. 

anyways. all those interactions with no one getting shot.

And if you are literally that zombied out where you can't notice that you went to the top floor of the garage, you miss the number on the elevator, you miss the numbers on the 16 apartments you pass, you miss the different floormats, you miss the large planter that isn't there anymore, and you miss the neon red doorman, you are 100% too zombied out to use deadly force. 

If I sleep with my gun under my pillow, my wife wakes me up, and I blow her away, I don't get to say "hey, I was just waking up, thought she was a burglar."

[SDG 3319]

1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

She's guilty as sin but will walk.  I'd also be willing to bet she's a cop somewhere before the end of 2020.

Just for context, the Shaver murdering cop was in the same boat when he walked and now has a tax payer funded medical retirement/pension for ptsd.  She seems likely to be on that plan.  

[TXSooner518 2432]

7 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

Negative. It was an intentional act. We have been over this. You can't claim it was accidental and claim self defense too. Think about how that makes no sense at all.

I intentionally run a red light and t-bone someone and kill them.  Murder or manslaughter?

Or see my example above. I intentionally shot my wife, but was confused as to the exact circumstances, and my actions were unreasonable, all facts considered. To me, those combination of facts mean I took an intentional act recklessly. The intent to shoot makes murder chargeable, but doesn't seem to bar manslaughter as a matter of law.

Edited September 24, 2019 by TXSooner518

[DaysOff 7851]

Police union is paying her legal defense and the City of Dallas taxpayers will be on the hook for her civil trial awards to the victim.

Makes no sense. She was off duty. If I kill someone in a cessna ALPA/UAL isn't paying for my defense.

[SDG 3319]

2 minutes ago, thestud said:

 

I’m having trouble understanding how you can claim workers comp for actions that occurred off-duty.

 

I think it was stated yesterday that she was in official capacity because she was in uniform.  

[4th and 5 4914]

3 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

I intentionally run a red light and t-bone someone and kill them.  Murder or manslaughter?

Or see my example above. I intentionally shot my wife, but was confused as to the exact circumstances, and my actions were unreasonable, all facts considered. To me, those combination of facts mean I took an intentional act recklessly. The intent to shoot makes murder chargeable, but doesn't seem to bar manslaughter as a matter of law.

Did you intentionally run the red light? That's conscious disregard of a known and substantial risk, and hence, manslaughter.

Or did you intentionally t-bone that person? That's murder, because it was your conscious objective or desire to cause the death, or at least cause serious bodily injury and commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes a death.

[bigup2dahorns 3343]

If I sleep with my gun under my pillow, my wife wakes me up, and I blow her away, I don't get to say "hey, I was just waking up, thought she was a burglar."

A mother recently (in the past 6 months) shot her daughter who came home from college to surprise her late at night. Daughter needed surgery but lived. Mother was not prosecuted. I don’t remember where this happened or where I saw it.

[Lou 264]

Is there any issue having the photo of Botham Jean on the judge's bench?

[TXSooner518 2432]

 

3 minutes ago, bigup2dahorns said:

 

A mother recently (in the past 6 months) shot her daughter who came home from college to surprise her late at night. Daughter needed surgery but lived. Mother was not prosecuted. I don’t remember where this happened or where I saw it.

 

Right, difference between a surprise entry to the house, and my wife waking me up to say "time to get up to take the kiddo to cross country" in the reasonableness of my response.

3 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

Did you intentionally run the red light? That's conscious disregard of a known and substantial risk, and hence, manslaughter.

Or did you intentionally t-bone that person? That's murder, because it was your conscious objective or desire to cause the death, or at least cause serious bodily injury and commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes a death.

I saw the car there, intentionally rammed it, but state it was my belief that the car was empty.

[Skipper 6103]

Maybe this has been discussed earlier in this thread, but for criminal attorneys, can the prosecution argue that because she was a trained law enforcement argue that the "reasonableness" of her actions should be a higher standard (as compared a regular small female with a CHL)?   In other words, even assuming the mistake of fact, that shooting what turned out to be an unarmed person was not a reasonable response to the situation for a trained law enforcement officer?   As it relates to the shooting itself, it seems like the evidence of exactly how far away he was at the time of the shooting, whether he was approaching, the lighting, etc. are all going to be pretty damn important.

[C-Man 27052]

Barrett Brown, formerly of D Magazine, on FB:

Quote

The basic defense of former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger in the wake of her killing of her black neighbor #BothamJean in his own apartment was that she was exhausted from over-work. This narrative was amplified by the local press whose other extraordinary failures in this case I documented at the time, prompting the managing editor of the Dallas Morning News to attack me by name from his Twitter account (without actually challenging anything I’d demonstrated his reporters to have done, naturally - and also while he and those same reporters simply refused to answer questions from Dallas residents about the worst instances).

Now we learn that, rather than being exhausted, Guyger was in fact energetic enough to have spent the time leading up to the shooting in sexting her partner, with whom she was in a sexual relationship.

Guyger wasn’t drained from all her diligent police work. She was distracted by her partner’s dick.

And this leads me to the incident in which Dallas Police Association President Mike Mata contacted my editor at D Magazine to make a “correction” over something I’d noted about the status of her phone, and then dodged my phone calls and texts for the whole day thereafter, leading to a public conflict between the two of us that ended with me revealing Mata’s role in other aspects of the cover-up and calling him a punk on Twitter. Suffice to say I’ll be posting the screenshot of that email he sent later today, along with
our one-way text correspondence and other materials, when I’ve finished some other things I’m working on. This won’t accomplish anything more than getting three high-ranking DPD officers on tape engaging in a
cover-up of the subsequent bomb threat to my magazine has done, but ultimately Dallas is less a place in which problems can actually be addressed than it is a living warning to every other major city in the Western world about what happens when you allow every basic civic institution to come under the control of predators on the one hand and talentless cowards on the other (this turns out not to work).

https://www.facebook.com/barrett.brown.902?__tn__=CH-R&eid=ARCzZXSISxOWRocnAgJ8m-xLXKTdNSxcHyJYUWR_oAr2-8TP_Dy8kCb3GrdIYL9cmhik5OJ6XHFeek88&hc_ref=ARRCE-3qiRZgHnAOnoio0FdihlPI5BZEfdu2OqsUKk_3PblkT2XA-rpk1sNVtxd4R6w&fref=nf&__xts__[0]=68.ARAj7yLf9Q8zAANRdN8f8UxmBLBjFhfur0fjDGWUmjr0efSeWs0cDjSes_y3elM0oJjXXSISa7YkBC7YEYUDZJfcXW1leyrR1LsV9YD3jwGjTXJbhEe4lzx38Rmk94z9yFnz5IHzraIqBdflJWl9hXGfUAAWXwWMymOwfVEfKs8Q8SI60C6wLP2V4Mu-SUpJqaHDZ3yd4JkXpHNU1JOhUSB-PYNMkCFfNJh3sAZa3W1GgYn8RxH9mnqQN0c04igUH-qS_j9qqf5e-bdPCXw0O2QAM7y-HjcdzY3IG9baREpgLXw3sBkViWOzBFR4UPruo8D-w32SewKbhm7t8xMEZ3cFRToss63rWrm5sI5g_3HaNXunc2s812QD

[bigup2dahorns 3343]

Maybe this has been discussed earlier in this thread, but for criminal attorneys, can the prosecution argue that because she was a trained law enforcement argue that the "reasonableness" of her actions should be a higher standard (as compared a regular small female with a CHL)?   In other words, even assuming the mistake of fact, that shooting what turned out to be an unarmed person was not a reasonable response to the situation for a trained law enforcement officer?   As it relates to the shooting itself, it seems like the evidence of exactly how far away he was at the time of the shooting, whether he was approaching, the lighting, etc. are all going to be pretty damn important.

Yes. It appears that the prosecution is and will make that argument that she should have acted in accordance with DPD rules and procedures. There was a bit of a preview already for that line of thinking yesterday.

[4th and 5 4914]

3 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Maybe this has been discussed earlier in this thread, but for criminal attorneys, can the prosecution argue that because she was a trained law enforcement argue that the "reasonableness" of her actions should be a higher standard (as compared a regular small female with a CHL)?   In other words, even assuming the mistake of fact, that shooting what turned out to be an unarmed person was not a reasonable response to the situation for a trained law enforcement officer?   As it relates to the shooting itself, it seems like the evidence of exactly how far away he was at the time of the shooting, whether he was approaching, the lighting, etc. are all going to be pretty damn important.

They can argue that. And they should. 

And as I stated before, the lighting and issues of perception and attention, distance and reaction time will be huge in this trial

[Skipper 6103]

3 minutes ago, bigup2dahorns said:

 

Yes. It appears that the prosecution is and will make that argument that she should have acted in accordance with DPD rules and procedures. There was a bit of a preview already for that line of thinking yesterday.

 

If I'm on the jury looking to find a way to convict that's what I could hang my hat on (assuming the evidence doesn't somehow prove he was charging her and was shot at close range, and based on what we've heard so far, it doesn't seem like that's the case).  I can actually buy she spaced out and walked into the wrong apartment, but if she acts as she was trained and issues a warning rather than immediately firing, that split second would have given her the time to realize her mistake without taking a life.   And although her actions after the fact shouldn't have any impact on the analysis of the shooting, it sure as hell may help some jurors lean towards looking for a reason to convict.

[immortal13 4059]

This is going to set a really bad precedent when she gets acquitted 

[Brisketexan 104610]

Just now, immortal13 said:

This is going to set a really bad precedent when she gets acquitted 

The precedent has already been set.  This case will just follow it.  If you are a cop, and you kill someone, it was justified.  Because you're a cop, and your training to determine whether someone needs killing or not is unassailable.  A cop killed a black man.  Therefore, it was reasonable and justified.  QED.

She walks.  She was always going to walk.  Same as it ever was.

[4th and 5 4914]

9 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

 

Right, difference between a surprise entry to the house, and my wife waking me up to say "time to get up to take the kiddo to cross country" in the reasonableness of my response.

I saw the car there, intentionally rammed it, but state it was my belief that the car was empty.

That is a fact issue for the jury to decide.

"I intentionally ran in to a parked car I thought was unoccupied." Known and substantial risk: it is not. Manslaughter.

If your hypo was you ran over some one because you were defending yourself or another, and your belief was wrong, that would be a better example. It would be murder either way, but one would be justified under Ch. 9.

 

If the jury finds your belief not credible, it is murder.

Here, she intentionally shot him. She may have been wrong about the true facts, but her intent is the same regardless: to intentionally (conscious objective or desire) cause the death of an individual.

[Orange&White 5516]

If she was "acting in an official capacity" then why was her body camera not rolling?*

 

 

*rhetorical question

[Brisketexan 104610]

1 minute ago, 4th and 5 said:

That is a fact issue for the jury to decide.

"I intentionally ran in to a parked car I thought was unoccupied." Known and substantial risk: it is not. Manslaughter.

If your hypo was you ran over some one because you were defending yourself or another, and your belief was wrong, that would be a better example. It would be murder either way, but one would be justified under Ch. 9.

 

If the jury finds your belief not credible, it is murder.

Here, she intentionally shot him. She may have been wrong about the true facts, but her intent is the same regardless: to intentionally (conscious objective or desire) cause the death of an individual.

It does make me wonder if there should be an amendment to the penal code.  If you kill someone because of a mistake of fact, but that mistake was UNREASONABLE, then it's manslaughter.  Something like that -- insert a reasonableness standard into the equation.  

Because if this is a case of a gap in the law allowing her to go free, that shit is bad.

Of course, I think she goes free because cops get the benefit of the doubt, always, and the dude was a scary black man on drugs.  

[TXSooner518 2432]

Is there case law that the "wrongness about the true facts" cannot be the basis of "recklessly causing the death of another"? I go into my friend's house, he and his wife are play wrestling, I unreasonably (based on all facts and circumstances) think her life is in danger and kill him by intentionally shooting him. 

The statutes in their plain language don't indicate that this can't be manslaughter, that my "intentional act" can't be reckless on its face. In addition to not being explicit in the statute that it can't be, it also seems to be absolutely horrendous public policy.

[Brisketexan 104610]

1 minute ago, Orange&White said:

If she was "acting in an official capacity" then why was her body camera not rolling?*

 

 

*rhetorical question

Weird function of the law.  I suspect the DPD camera policy is "while you are on duty," or something similar.  And Texas law makes LEOs always acting in an official capacity when they observe a crime being committed, but that doesn't = "on duty."  It's a distinction in that the camera policy applies only to "on duty for DPD," not "whenever you might be acting in an official capacity, even when you're off duty" -- because of course, that would be unworkable.  That circumstance could occur even on her day off, as she'd going grocery shopping and sees a purse snatcher and tackles him.  She isn't going to have a body cam then, nor should she.

[bigup2dahorns 3343]

If she was "acting in an official capacity" then why was her body camera not rolling?*
 
 
*rhetorical question

(Not a lawyer but have stayed at holiday inn express):

It’s a technical issue to be argued that in the DPD handbook of rules and regulations that you always act in accordance within their rules. She was off duty as in off the schedule and punched out so I assume that takes the body cam out of play.