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

[Sandman 3427]

10 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Did any of them have a bright red floor mat at the door which differs significantly from your apartment? A few times I have accidentally entered another persons car because it was identical make, model, and color to mine and the door was unlocked. I figured out my mistake pretty quick.  I've never made that mistake with an identical make and model but a different color. It is ridiculous to believe someone would make that mistake. 

You wouldn't make a mistake about the color of your car because a car is important, you NEED one, you paid a lot of money for it. I have a doormat but can't tell you exactly what it looks like because I don't give a shit, it's one of the most unimportant things I own. I helped pick it out and I don't remember shit about it. The only time I look for a mat is if I've stepped in mud and I'm at someone else's house. I don't normally step in mud, so I honestly couldn't tell you the last time I looked down for a doormat or even noticed if one was there.

[Guest Lobo]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

That's the truth, and the whole truth, right there.  Her immediate reaction of "this guy must be a dangerous intruder!" would NOT have been the reaction if he was a generic white guy.  And it wouldn't have been that reaction if she wasn't a cop who is constantly at war with the whole world out to kill her and she just wants to get home safe to her family and you don't know how hard it is out there we could die any second.

It was murder.

Last I checked, murder, at least by degrees, requires some element of pre-meditation.  There's another word that has to do with "before-the-fact" behavior...starts with a "pre"-fix, if you will.  Almost as if you decide to shoot someone, not necessarily that specific person, but a person who looks like based on a pre-decided set of facts in your head.  What's the word for that again?  Then add "gun" and "shitty training" to the suffix.  

['stache 22117]

1 minute ago, Sandman said:

You wouldn't make a mistake about the color of your car because a car is important, you NEED one, you paid a lot of money for it. I have a doormat but can't tell you exactly what it looks like because I don't give a shit, it's one of the most unimportant things I own. I helped pick it out and I don't remember shit about it. The only time I look for a mat is if I've stepped in mud and I'm at someone else's house. I don't normally step in mud, so I honestly couldn't tell you the last time I looked down for a doormat or even noticed if one was there.

That means even more that if you don't have a floormat at all, you'd notice a bright red one as you approached the door and said "wft is this thing? Oh, I'm on the wrong floor. What a moron I am."

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

4 minutes ago, Sandman said:

You wouldn't make a mistake about the color of your car because a car is important, you NEED one, you paid a lot of money for it. I have a doormat but can't tell you exactly what it looks like because I don't give a shit, it's one of the most unimportant things I own. I helped pick it out and I don't remember shit about it. The only time I look for a mat is if I've stepped in mud and I'm at someone else's house. I don't normally step in mud, so I honestly couldn't tell you the last time I looked down for a doormat or even noticed if one was there.

Mine has some cool looking alpacas on it wearing Peruvian-like clothing.  My old one was a Welcome mat that had a fall motif, but that one is now on the patio instead of at the front door.

[TwiceHorn 31994]

7 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Last I checked, murder, at least by degrees, requires some element of pre-meditation.  There's another word that has to do with "before-the-fact" behavior...starts with a "pre"-fix, if you will.  Almost as if you decide to shoot someone, not necessarily that specific person, but a person who looks like based on a pre-decided set of facts in your head.  What's the word for that again?  Then add "gun" and "shitty training" to the suffix.  

Well, you didn't check the Texas Penal Code.

The Texas Penal Code, by and large, doesn't enumerate a bunch of crimes that differ by degree, although it's getting much worse in the last 20-25 years because of the shitgibbons in the lege.  Generally, it outlines broad crimes, some aggravating/mitigating factors, and then categorizes them accordingly as state jail, third, second, or first degree felonies with broad punishment ranges.  Because we have indeterminate (no "guidelines") sentencing by juries, a lot of the "fine tuning" occurs at sentencing rather than indictment and conviction.

I think Texas' approach is superior to those states that have 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree murder plus capital, plus voluntary and involuntary manslaughter and so on and so forth.  For one thing, their statutes are so gotdam wordy that there just has to be some unintended consequences in there, plus it's a pain in the ass to parse.

Edited September 24, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Sandman 3427]

13 minutes ago, 'stache said:

 That means even more that if you don't have a floormat at all, you'd notice a bright red one as you approached the door and said "wft is this thing? Oh, I'm on the wrong floor. What a moron I am."

I don't agree, as I don't look around at shit when I come home. I go straight inside and do what the fuck ever. I'm also colorblind, so the color means dick to me. I realize this lady is not colorblind, I'm just speaking about how I would act.

I hope you don't take this a me sticking up for this woman. I'm not a cop hater nor a "blue lives matter" guy, I just don't agree with the premise of "Floormat=guilty". 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Sandman

[Guest Lobo]

Fair enough, but doesn't a charge or murder necessitate some element of "planning" "premeditation" or "advanced malice" or whatever the cuss you wanna call it?  Not the immediate, full of shock, spur of the moment, shooting they are trying to paint this as?  Serious question, my assumptive bias aside...

[TXSooner518 2455]

1 minute ago, Lobo said:

Fair enough, but doesn't a charge or murder necessitate some element of "planning" "premeditation" or "advanced malice" or whatever the cuss you wanna call it?  Not the immediate, full of shock, spur of the moment, shooting they are trying to paint this as?  Serious question, my assumptive bias aside...

No

[Deej 77676]

1 minute ago, Sandman said:

I don't agree, as I don't look around at shit when I come home. I go straight inside and do what the fuck ever. I'm also colorblind, so the color means dick to me. I realize this lady is not colorblind, I'm just speaking about how I would act.

I hope you don't take this a me sticking up for this woman. I'm nota cop hater nor a "blue lives matter" guy, I just don't agree with the premise of "Floormat=guilty". 

So your colorblindness makes it so you can't tell the difference between having a doormat and not having a doormat. Interdasting...

[TwiceHorn 31994]

1 minute ago, Lobo said:

Fair enough, but doesn't a charge or murder necessitate some element of "planning" "premeditation" or "advanced malice" or whatever the cuss you wanna call it?  Not the immediate, full of shock, spur of the moment, shooting they are trying to paint this as?  Serious question, my assumptive bias aside...

No.  However, acting under the influence of "sudden passion" can drop it from 1st degree to 2nd degree, at sentencing.

[Guest Lobo]

Dammit, that's what I get for having Rafi as my legal counsel.  Said he was with V&E.  Turns out that meant "Vaginas and Eatin'  "  

Plus, I went to law school.  But not a great one.  

Edited September 24, 2019 by Lobo

[Skipper 6406]

13 minutes ago, 'stache said:

That means even more that if you don't have a floormat at all, you'd notice a bright red one as you approached the door and said "wft is this thing? Oh, I'm on the wrong floor. What a moron I am."

I have zero idea if I currently have a doormat on my front door.  It's fucking red for all I know.   It just isn't the smoking gun the handful of people in this thread that are ultra-observant by nature are making it out to be.   It is plausible IMO if she was looking at her phone she never would have looked down or noticed a mat at all.   Just don't think that's where this case is going to get won.  

Edited September 24, 2019 by Skipper

[TwiceHorn 31994]

That there is so much disagreement right on this thread about floormats, apartment numbers, and card keys, etc. just shows it's a jury question and a really close one at that.

And then, if you are the sort that wants the jury to apply reasonable doubt strictly, even if most of the jurors don't believe it was reasonable according to their own perceptions, if they think it's reasonably possible that someone else could have missed it, they must acquit.

Edited September 24, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[housious 468]

14 minutes ago, Sandman said:

You wouldn't make a mistake about the color of your car because a car is important, you NEED one, you paid a lot of money for it. I have a doormat but can't tell you exactly what it looks like because I don't give a shit, it's one of the most unimportant things I own. I helped pick it out and I don't remember shit about it. The only time I look for a mat is if I've stepped in mud and I'm at someone else's house. I don't normally step in mud, so I honestly couldn't tell you the last time I looked down for a doormat or even noticed if one was there.

Same here. I know that there is a doormat on the front porch of my house. I have zero idea what it looks like.

[Vic Mackey 47849]

2 hours ago, jkates said:

Man, I couldn't disagree more. I would imagine that we've had multiple doormats at our house over the years. I don't know if I've ever noticed them. My wife will change them for various reasons - seasonal, holiday, dirty/worn out, and I won't notice. 

She lived alone right? So this is her house. She furnishes everything. Arranges the furniture. Buys all the furniture. And this includes the doormat.She should have remembered  if she bought a bright red doormat.

How often has she often walked into the wrong apartment before this incident? How often do others and has anyone ever been shot and killed? Nope. Being negligent and careless is not an excuse for killing someone.

And the defense of "well this apartment complex is so confusing and people go to the wrong floor and doors often, that doesn't help her. In fact, that should make you even more aware of your surroundings every time you enter your apartment.

And that defense she had that she was so disoriented from such a long shift and it came out she was sexting a former lover and was actually texting and doing personal stuff quite often that day, right? Yeah so disoriented...

[Continental Op 3934]

Fair enough, but doesn't a charge or murder necessitate some element of "planning" "premeditation" or "advanced malice" or whatever the cuss you wanna call it?  Not the immediate, full of shock, spur of the moment, shooting they are trying to paint this as?  Serious question, my assumptive bias aside...

Are you reading the thread at all or are you just stopping by intermittently to contribute your senseless blathering? This has been covered several times, including once since the trial began.

[Chewbacca 7827]

Do we know for sure how she got in the apartment yet?  was the door open?

[Vic Mackey 47849]

1 minute ago, housious said:

Same here. I know that there is a doormat on the front porch of my house. I have zero idea what it looks like.

Probably because a doormat for a house is not that important to distinguish your house from another. In an apartment where everything looks the same on every floor, these stand out more and you remember them more.

[bigup2dahorns 3348]

Do we know for sure how she got in the apartment yet?  was the door open?

It was mentioned/previewed in the opening statements that the door was not locked and likely ajar, did not fully close.

[Chewbacca 7827]

Just now, bigup2dahorns said:

 

It was mentioned/previewed in the opening statements that the door was not locked and likely ajar, did not fully close.

 

Clean toxicology and no forced entry = she's walking even though she shouldn't.  Fuck.

[Guest Lobo]

3 minutes ago, Continental Op said:

9 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Fair enough, but doesn't a charge or murder necessitate some element of "planning" "premeditation" or "advanced malice" or whatever the cuss you wanna call it?  Not the immediate, full of shock, spur of the moment, shooting they are trying to paint this as?  Serious question, my assumptive bias aside...

Are you reading the thread at all or are you just stopping by intermittently to contribute your senseless blathering? This has been covered several times, including once since the trial began.

I don't know the intricacies of what exactly the Prosecutor was targeting directly in terms of levels of malice or premeditation, it's over my head legally.  What I was asking was could her prejudice against blacks be taken into account of how she may have had that in her head prior to the shooting?  That her thoughts on black men could have immediately fed into her thought process as she drew her weapon and opened fire almost immediately?  Didn't articulate it well, I admit.  But calm the fuck down, I've asked and provided plenty of fair questions/comments on this thread.  Admittedly, this one wasn't perfectly articulated, but most folks knew what I meant.  I'll make my next line of questions as tight as your wife's asshole during our last Halloween party.  

[Skipper 6406]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That there is so much disagreement right on this thread about floormats, apartment numbers, and card keys, etc. just shows it's a jury question and a really close one at that.

And then, if you are the sort that wants the jury to apply reasonable doubt strictly, even if most of the jurors don't believe it was reasonable according to their own perceptions, if they think it's reasonably possible that someone else could have missed it, they must acquit.

That's why I think the prosecution's focus should be that a reasonable trained LEO doesn't walk in blasting outside of a clear overt threat.  The red doormat and apartment numbers, etc may be enough for some jurors.  But I have to think most have an issue thinking a reasonable response is to shoot first ask questions later.  Especially if/when it clearly goes against your training.  It's why I kind of think the defense may need to put her on the stand to see if she could convince otherwise (obviously depending on how good of a witness they think she is).

[bigup2dahorns 3348]

We are supposed to hear from Guyger when the defense begins and I think we will hear that she was carrying some sort of a bag from work which partially or fully obscured her view of the welcome matt as she was standing at the door.

[smuggs 9394]

6 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

She lived alone right? So this is her house. She furnishes everything. Arranges the furniture. Buys all the furniture. And this includes the doormat.She should have remembered  if she bought a bright red doormat.

Maybe Sex Cop surprised her with a fancy red doormat after doing some filthy Arby's duty.

[TXSooner518 2455]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That there is so much disagreement right on this thread about floormats, apartment numbers, and card keys, etc. just shows it's a jury question and a really close one at that.

And then, if you are the sort that wants the jury to apply reasonable doubt strictly, even if most of the jurors don't believe it was reasonable according to their own perceptions, if they think it's reasonably possible that someone else could have missed it, they must acquit.

I don't agree with this characterization. You can miss the doormat and still find either that 1) her thought that she was in her own apartment was unreasonable; or 2) her actions, even if her thought that she was in her own apartment was reasonable, were unreasonable. 

1 minute ago, bigup2dahorns said:

It was mentioned/previewed in the opening statements that the door was not locked and likely ajar, did not fully close.

 

Ajar is misleading. There were no comments that it was open, more that it was resting against the jamb, but just not quite to the point of latching. We will see what she says, but there has never been a comment that she noticed the door was open. In fact, the story is the opposite, she didn't realize it was open, put her keyfob in the opening to unlock "her" door, but it pushed open because it was resting against the jamb.

[Heisenberg 162]

I doubt Guyger takes the stand.  Defense lawyers throw all sorts of lies into their opening statements, as we've already seen in this trial.

[Fuck Tim Beck 3892]

2 minutes ago, bigup2dahorns said:

We are supposed to hear from Guyger when the defense begins and I think we will hear that she was carrying some sort of a bag from work which partially or fully obscured her view of the welcome matt as she was standing at the door.

It was a bag of dicks she brought home from the station 

[Guest Lobo]

2 minutes ago, Fuck Tim Beck said:

It was a bag of dicks she brought home from the station 

That explain why Stoops took the Dallas XFL job that same night.  

[Sandman 3427]

7 minutes ago, Fuck Tim Beck said:

It was a bag of dicks she brought home from the station 

Impossible. Bob Stoops would've shot her dead to get that bag. She'd never have made it home.

[Deej 77676]

In that body cam video, how far do you think it is from the door to the sofa? Doesn't seem like he made it too far off the sofa before she unloaded on him. I wonder if he had any time to respond to her "commands"?

[SquishMitten 10493]

3 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

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.

I don't believe mistake of fact works when invoking defense of others. Meaning, you have the right to "step into" someone else's right to self-defense, but if you're wrong (i.e., they couldn't have invoked self-defense themselves) then you're going down regardless of how reasonable you thought your actions to be. 

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

19 minutes ago, smuggs said:

Maybe Sex Cop surprised her with a fancy red doormat after doing some filthy Arby's duty.

Maybe he gave her the ol' Monkey Roll.

Edited September 24, 2019 by hopkinsnhorns

[Seasick Sailor 3747]

The judge seems to be tearing up too. 

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

6 minutes ago, Deej said:

In that body cam video, how far do you think it is from the door to the sofa? Doesn't seem like he made it too far off the sofa before she unloaded on him. I wonder if he had any time to respond to her "commands"?

Per one of the responding officers that rendered aid, there were also earbuds found next to his person on the floor.  It's likely he was wearing them, listening to something on his computer while the TV was showing the football game behind it.  He may not have had a chance to respond to her commands, if she made any at all before lighting his ass up.

[HOOKEM4 5152]

I cant imagine the stress of having to testify in a case against a cop. I would be freaking the fuck out.

[hookem17 485]

13 minutes ago, Deej said:

In that body cam video, how far do you think it is from the door to the sofa? Doesn't seem like he made it too far off the sofa before she unloaded on him. I wonder if he had any time to respond to her "commands"?

If she could see him getting off the couch, she should have also been able to recognize that it wasn’t her couch. 

[4th and 5 4997]

15 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

I don't believe mistake of fact works when invoking defense of others. Meaning, you have the right to "step into" someone else's right to self-defense, but if you're wrong (i.e., they couldn't have invoked self-defense themselves) then you're going down regardless of how reasonable you thought your actions to be. 

Negative, sir. 

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

[rantanamo 143]

Have they said anything about the layout of her apt?  Was her tv and sofa oriented in the same way his was?

[SquishMitten 10493]

24 minutes ago, Skipper said:

That's why I think the prosecution's focus should be that a reasonable trained LEO doesn't walk in blasting outside of a clear overt threat.  The red doormat and apartment numbers, etc may be enough for some jurors.  But I have to think most have an issue thinking a reasonable response is to shoot first ask questions later.  Especially if/when it clearly goes against your training. 

It's why I think the prosecution will need to strongly emphasize what a not-guilty verdict really means - a cop can walk into your house at any time, shoot you, and they'll get away with it.

[SquishMitten 10493]

10 minutes ago, HOOKEM4 said:

I cant imagine the stress of having to testify in a case against a cop. I would be freaking the fuck out.

Why? What's the worst that could happen if she's eventually acquitted? Not like she could just stroll into your house and murder you. There's laws against that kinda thing, man!

[4th and 5 4997]

The state's case is going up in flames on day 2.

Her entering the wrong apartment is so forseeable.

The argument that if everybody is doing it why wasn't she more careful?!?! doesn't hold water because everyone doesn't know everyone else is doing it. In other words, if it happened 90 times, did every person who did it know 89 others did it too? so they would be more careful?

The only chance the state has is the use of deadly force being shown to be unreasonable after their interaction begins.

Dr. Green is going to crush the state's case

[Skipper 6406]

First time I've watched the live stream and last 2 witnesses they seem to be focusing on fact they didn't hear her give a command before firing.  Which fits with focusing on her actions once she entered (whether reasonably mistaken entry or not)

[Vic Mackey 47849]

14 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

The state's case is going up in flames on day 2.

Her entering the wrong apartment is so forseeable.

The argument that if everybody is doing it why wasn't she more careful?!?! doesn't hold water because everyone doesn't know everyone else is doing it. In other words, if it happened 90 times, did every person who did it know 89 others did it too? so they would be more careful?

The only chance the state has is the use of deadly force being shown to be unreasonable after their interaction begins.

Dr. Green is going to crush the state's case

It's her fault she entered the wrong apartment. The apartment number is next to the door. Does she not know how to read? Because she obviously uses this to enter her correct apartment every day before that.Once glance would have told her she was not only at the wrong apartment but the wrong floor. Her fault for being negligent and someone lost their life because of it. The fact the state has to build some big case because a negligent bitch killed someone due to her own fault shows how broken this system is and how much favor they show to cops.

Another cop killing someone and going to skate? Got to love "justice" . I love this precedent. You are telling me anyone that lives in an apartment complex or staying at a hotel can enter the wrong residence and blow the owner's brains out and it's ok because whoopsy daisy, I was in the wrong apartment and thought it was my own. What a silly mistake. 

['stache 22117]

1 hour ago, Skipper said:

I have zero idea if I currently have a doormat on my front door.  It's fucking red for all I know.   It just isn't the smoking gun the handful of people in this thread that are ultra-observant by nature are making it out to be.   It is plausible IMO if she was looking at her phone she never would have looked down or noticed a mat at all.   Just don't think that's where this case is going to get won.  

I guess I'm just fucking crazy. I'm not Sherlock with some super sense of observation, but I just don't get the idea that you wouldn't notice something that different. Keep in mind this isn't a detached home on a residential street, and it's not a situation where "the wife" may have bought it.  The whole premise of the defense is that the apartment building is confusing and everything looks the same. A bright red floor mat would stick out like a sore thumb, especially if you live alone and never bought one. I'm just dumbfounded that anyone thinks that's not a huge issue.

[Vic Mackey 47849]

4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I guess I'm just fucking crazy. I'm not Sherlock with some super sense of observation, but I just don't get the idea that you wouldn't notice something that different. Keep in mind this isn't a detached home on a residential street, and it's not a situation where "the wife" may have bought it.  The whole premise of the defense is that the apartment building is confusing and everything looks the same. A bright red floor mat would stick out like a sore thumb, especially if you live alone and never bought one. I'm just dumbfounded that anyone thinks that's not a huge issue.

Exactly. Comparing a floormat at a house that your wife bought is not even close to a floormat at your apartment. Where it is the only thing that distinguishes your place from the next room besides the actual apartment number on the door or next to it. It stands out much more in an apartment complex hallway than in front of a detached house. Watch the video. You can't miss it at all. It is bright red. But hey, it's ok to disregard that or the actual apartment number. Just a silly mistake! Happens all the time...

[Skipper 6406]

Welcome to jury deliberations.  Some people give more weight to certain facts than others.   Neither side is wrong.  Doormat isn't some kind of smoking gun with me and others.  It is with you all.  Let's move on.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Skipper

[TXSooner518 2455]

57 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

Negative, sir. 

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Isn't this what he basically said, and it comes down to whether the actor's belief regarding the circumstances was "reasonable" given all facts?

[High Plains Drifter 11162]

I just want to chime in here:

 

Once I walked into the wrong classroom in ESB, exactly one floor off. I didn't realize it until the TA started passing out a test. So, I could see her mistakenly going into the wrong apt.

 

However, despite being high, hung over, and sleep deprived, I didn't kill anyone. I just waited a few moments and calmly turned in the test and walked out. Other than a strange look from the TA, no drama.

 

 

[Jester 382]

3 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

I just want to chime in here:

 

Once I walked into the wrong classroom in ESB, exactly one floor off. I didn't realize it until the TA started passing out a test. So, I could see her mistakenly going into the wrong apt.

 

However, despite being high, hung over, and sleep deprived, I didn't kill anyone. I just waited a few moments and calmly turned in the test and walked out. Other than a strange look from the TA, no drama.

 

 

UN definitely checks out.

[4th and 5 4997]

14 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Isn't this what he basically said, and it comes down to whether the actor's belief regarding the circumstances was "reasonable" given all facts?

No that is not what he said. Both the third party and the actor could be wrong, in fact, about self defense being justified, but it could still be reasonable.