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

[hookem17 485]

The prosecutor is focusing on the location of the light switches just inside the door. Continuing to build toward her unreasonable reaction. 

[4th and 5 4997]

Here we go into the lighting. 50 inch TV and laptop.

The switches are bullshit. She supposed to enter and turn them on, stuff in her hands? Have those fine motor skills when she thinks there is an intruder in her apartment? It doesn't work that way 

And looks like he didn't make it very far off the couch.

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by 4th and 5

[Vic Mackey 47849]

10 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.

 

 

Your own residence is much different than a random classroom at a school. Walking into the wrong house is extremely negligent. Any adult should be aware of their surroundings enough to enter their own house. If not, they have issues. Whether you are drunk, tired, in a daze, etc, doesn't excuse the negligence at play.

This should be a slam dunk case in normal reality but we know how shitty the courts and systems are where lawyers are paid big money to exploit the law and get people off for crimes like this.

Entered the wrong apartment. No idea she was not in her own home. Shot and killed a man in his own house minding his own business. And people actually justify this shit. I get lawyers because they are paid to do such. But everyone else? What a crock of shit. They are actually saying its ok to enter their own home and kill them because the killer was mistaken and everything is fine. All because she was not paying attention. Oh, and she's a cop. That is a huge factor. Any normal citizen is not getting this treatment.

[Gooby 642]

4 hours ago, Seasick Sailor said:

 

These cops made it to the right apartment.  But they probably weren't scouting penis in the minutes leading up to arriving

[hookem17 485]

5 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

Here we go into the lighting. 50 inch TV and laptop.

The switches are bullshit. She supposed to enter and turn them on, stuff in her hands? Have those fine motor skills when she thinks there is an intruder in her apartment? It doesn't work that way 

And looks like he didn't make it very far off the couch.

 

If she can reach for her gun, she can reach for the light switch. 

[4th and 5 4997]

When you stick your dick in some skank's asshole and she claims rape, I'll be sure to point that out to your lawyer, Vic. We're all out here just getting guilty people off.

[TwiceHorn 31994]

1 hour ago, TXSooner518 said:

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. 

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.

My characterization isn't limited to the doormat.  It's all of these things.  There's pretty serious room for disagreement on most of them, which leads me toward thinking a jury is going to find reasonable doubt based on mistake of fact.

I'm not sure reasonableness of her actions comes into play once she's "reasonably" in the apartment, as I think the self-defense statutes make it presumptively reasonable to waste someone in your own place.  But it's been a while since we ran those traps.

Also, we haven't heard much from either side in the case on the "self defense" issues.

[4th and 5 4997]

1 minute ago, hookem17 said:

If she can reach for her gun, she can reach for the light switch. 

There's an intruder in my home.

Let me turn on the light switch.

That how it works?

[TwiceHorn 31994]

1 hour ago, Heisenberg said:

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.

Not if they like getting acquittals, they don't.

[4th and 5 4997]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

My characterization isn't limited to the doormat.  It's all of these things.  There's pretty serious room for disagreement on most of them, which leads me toward thinking a jury is going to find reasonable doubt based on mistake of fact.

I'm not sure reasonableness of her actions comes into play once she's "reasonably" in the apartment, as I think the self-defense statutes make it presumptively reasonable to waste someone in your own place.  But it's been a while since we ran those traps.

Also, we haven't heard much from either side in the case on the "self defense" issues.

She has to actually be in her occupied home. Not reasonably believe it to be so. And not violating the law, like criminally trespassing, if she entered. I did the analysis way back when.

She won't get the benefit of a "force used was reasonable" presumption, nor a "no duty to retreat" instruction in the jury charge. 

Edited September 24, 2019 by 4th and 5

[TwiceHorn 31994]

1 hour ago, TXSooner518 said:

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. 

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.

I imagine they are using the term "ajar," regardless of its connotations, because that's what she told the Ranger initially.  That's what he used in the original arrest warrant.

[hookem17 485]

If the alternative is reaching for a gun, yes. 

[TwiceHorn 31994]

1 minute ago, 4th and 5 said:

She has to actually be in her occupied home. Not reasonably believe it to be so. And not violating the law, like criminally trespassing, if she entered. I did the analysis way back when.

She won't get the benefit of a "presumed reasonable" presumption, nor a "no duty to retreat" instruction in the jury charge. 

One might think, though, that the defense and prosecution might have argued more on that point in openings.

[4th and 5 4997]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not if they like getting acquittals, they don't.

I think they gotta put her on.

I've put one on is a self defense case. Rarely would otherwise.

The jury wants to her from her. She has to be terrified.

[Skipper 6406]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not sure reasonableness of her actions comes into play once she's "reasonably" in the apartment, as I think the self-defense statutes make it presumptively reasonable to waste someone in your own place.  But it's been a while since we ran those traps.

Also, we haven't heard much from either side in the case on the "self defense" issues.

Well this is what we need to nail down as I'm under the impression it does matter.  But it's been like 15 years since I took crim law.     Based on testimony so far I would be shocked if jury unanimously dismisses mistake of fact.  I think it's absolutely plausible (and frankly likely) that at the moment she opened the door in her mind she was opening her apartment.  But if I'm on the jury I'm going to have a hard time being convinced she acted reasonably from that point on absent evidence he flashed a weapon or was charging her (and we know at this point zero evidence of either).

[TwiceHorn 31994]

13 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

 

This should be a slam dunk case in normal reality but we know how shitty the courts and systems are where lawyers are paid big money to exploit the law and get people off for crimes like this.

 

Pfft.  You don't try a case by just coming in and saying "mmmm, she's bad, ok, convict her for killing this dude."  The facts have to be fit to the law and a jury has to agree with your theory of the case to convict or acquit.

I don't care if they were both black civilians or both white nazi cops or any combination thereof, this was going to be a tricky fucking case from jump street.

[4th and 5 4997]

I don't think mistake of fact is really the defense.

It's self defense. You have the right to defend yourself from danger both apparent and real, as long as the force used is reasonable. It's called apparent danger in the law. It is encompassed within the defense of self defense.

Sec. 8.02. MISTAKE OF FACT. (a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact (HE IS AN INTRUDER IN HER APARTMENT) if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability (INTENT TO CAUSE DEATH OF INDIVIDUAL) required for commission of the offense.

(b) Although an actor's mistake of fact may constitute a defense to the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of any lesser included offense of which he would be guilty if the fact were as he believed.

 

Mistake of fact is more like I took an umbrella reasonably believing it was mine but it was not.

Matter of fact: ownership of umbrella

Negated intent: intend to permanently deprive the owner of property

Edited September 24, 2019 by 4th and 5

[Skipper 6406]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Pfft.  You don't try a case by just coming in and saying "mmmm, she's bad, ok, convict her for killing this dude."  The facts have to be fit to the law and a jury has to agree with your theory of the case to convict or acquit.

I don't care if they were both black civilians or both white nazi cops or any combination thereof, this was going to be a tricky fucking case from jump street.

I think it's best to just ignore Vic's rants and whoever the dude is that's convinced this was some elaborate hit from political enemies

Edited September 24, 2019 by Skipper

[TwiceHorn 31994]

14 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

She has to actually be in her occupied home. Not reasonably believe it to be so. And not violating the law, like criminally trespassing, if she entered. I did the analysis way back when.

She won't get the benefit of a "presumed reasonable" presumption, nor a "no duty to retreat" instruction in the jury charge. 

I agree that the self defense statute does not provide for reasonable belief, but mistake of fact does.  And could conceivably take care of the "not committing another offense prong."  A lot depends on "kind of culpability."

But, if her actions after reasonably entering the premises also have to be reasonable, then I agree there's plenty of room for conviction.

Edited September 24, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31994]

1 minute ago, Skipper said:

I think it's best to just ignore Vic's rants and whoever the dude is that's convinced this was some elaborate hit from political entities

No doubt with regard to Vic, but the same sentiments underlie a lot of the comments on this thread.

[formermav43 4607]

30 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

There's an intruder in my home.

Let me turn on the light switch.

That how it works?

You said, “She supposed to enter and turn them on, stuff in her hands? Have those fine motor skills when she thinks there is an intruder in her apartment? It doesn't work that way.” That seemingly applies to drawing her gun just as much as reaching for the light switch.

It appears you’re making a different argument here.

Edited September 24, 2019 by formermav43

[RPM 26565]

I may be an extraordinarily talented human, but I've turned the lights on with my hands full of grocery bags lots of times. 

[HRSchenker 2331]

Lots of people are focusing on the red doormat and I gotta say, as someone who has lived in Dallas apartments and was doing so when this shooting happened, it is totally unconvincing to me. When I lived in Camden Belmont they bought new residents door mats. They just placed them in front of your door. The story we've been told is that she didn't have a door mat. I would think differently if she had one to begin with but she didn't. If I saw a door mat that didn't look like mine, the apartment not being mine would probably rank behind either the complex put one there or my wife is wasting more money on aesthetic nonsense. 

Then again, this is probably why I would make a terrible juror. 

[Constant 6844]

3 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

The testimony was she had left her bodycam at the station, which seems perfectly normal and reasonable. The bodycam footage discussed is from the responding officers.

Correct. The timestamp of her docking the body camera was covered with the testimony from the Sgt. over the body camera program. Docking the equipment begins charging the device and the upload of the data to the cloud. There is an extensive audit trail with the Axon system. I’m half certain it’s counting my farts throughout a night. 

[4th and 5 4997]

27 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

You said, “She supposed to enter and turn them on, stuff in her hands? Have those fine motor skills when she thinks there is an intruder in her apartment? It doesn't work that way.” That seemingly applies to drawing her gun just as much as reaching for the light switch.

It appears you’re making a different argument here.

It applies to everything you do when you are in fear for your life.

When you are in fear for your life, do you go for a firearm in your possession, or move forward towards a perceived threat, for the purpose of turning on a light switch?

Is that really the first thing a person in such a situation would think of doing?

[SDG 3335]

Did we ever get word on the admissibility of her previous itchy finger encounter where she was the only officer who opened fire. The seems important; at least it will be in the wrongful death case.   

[formermav43 4607]

6 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

It applies to everything you do when you are in fear for your life.

When you are in fear for your life, do you go for a firearm in your possession, or move forward towards a perceived threat, for the purpose of turning on a light switch?

Is that really the first thing a person in such a situation would think of doing?

I’m not commenting on what someone would be expected to do-you’re probably correct. But that has nothing to do with stuff in her hands and fine motor skills. Again, you’re making a different argument here. The post responding to you about turning on the lights was a valid counter to that argument.

[TwiceHorn 31994]

12 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

Lots of people are focusing on the red doormat and I gotta say, as someone who has lived in Dallas apartments and was doing so when this shooting happened, it is totally unconvincing to me. When I lived in Camden Belmont they bought new residents door mats. They just placed them in front of your door. The story we've been told is that she didn't have a door mat. I would think differently if she had one to begin with but she didn't. If I saw a door mat that didn't look like mine, the apartment not being mine would probably rank behind either the complex put one there or my wife is wasting more money on aesthetic nonsense. 

Then again, this is probably why I would make a terrible juror. 

Nah, you're just bringing your own experience to it.  That's what being a juror is all about.  So there will be 12 different experiences with regard to entering the wrong apartment, car, whatever.

That's why it's kind of foolish for people to declare that their experience or analysis of the facts is "right" or someone else's is "wrong."

[TwiceHorn 31994]

Also, the evidence that Michael Mata, the head of the Dallas Police Association, was on scene and giving orders is highly disturbing and shows something.  That a DPA rep might have been there for "moral support" would not be surprising or particularly disturbing.  That the HEAD of it was there, and telling people to turn off cameras and audio recording, probably unlawfully, basically proves the existence of a thin blue line.

[Deej 77676]

That's just standard operating procedure. Nothing to see here.

[bolverk 30245]

As someone mentioned upthread, I too would like to see a photographic comparison of his versus her apartments taken from the vantage point of the doorway.

Edited September 25, 2019 by bolverk

[Deej 77676]

3 minutes ago, bolverk said:

As someone mentioned upthread, I too would like to see a photographic comparison of his versus her apartments taken from the vantage point of the doorway.

I wouldn't be surprised if Dallas PD rearranged her apartment accordingly in the hours after.

[Orange&White 5563]

2 hours ago, 4th and 5 said:

Here we go into the lighting. 50 inch TV and laptop.

The switches are bullshit. She supposed to enter and turn them on, stuff in her hands? Have those fine motor skills when she thinks there is an intruder in her apartment? It doesn't work that way 

And looks like he didn't make it very far off the couch.

 

But her motor skills were good enough to drop all of her stuff, draw her weapon and fire two shots that killed someone?

[Orange&White 5563]

5 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

 

Her argument is she thought she was encountering a burglary in progress. DPD policy indicates she should be following agency protocols in that event.

 

Is DFD policy that a single officer that enters into a residence through the only point of egress to immediately confront and shoot the suspect? Or could the policy include something about de escalation, or possibly retreating through the only point of egress and waiting for backup?

It seems to me that the defense shouldn’t get to use the “acting in official capacity” as both a reason and an excuse.

[TXSooner518 2455]

Is DFD policy that a single officer that enters into a residence through the only point of egress to immediately confront and shoot the suspect? Or could the policy include something about de escalation, or possibly retreating through the only point of egress and waiting for backup?

It seems to me that the defense shouldn’t get to use the “acting in official capacity” as both a reason and an excuse.

 

Correct. My post wasn’t clear. Her argument is she thought he was an intruder. The argument about policy was being made by the prosecutor, saying that she should have been following protocol, which involves backup, cover/concealment, maintain perimeter rather than blam blam.

 

The defense was objecting, trying to keep the protocols out of evidence.

[4th and 5 4997]

56 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

But her motor skills were good enough to drop all of her stuff, draw her weapon and fire two shots that killed someone?

Did she drop off her stuff?

Is dropping items in your hand something that requires fine motor skills?

Do you know why they practice drawing their firearm and shooting so often? It’s because it’s really fucking hard to do in a fight or flight situation  

 

 

 

 

[HouTex 1912]

So what is the prosecution's theory on motive? Premeditated? Did she know him and did they have issues? Or was she just horribly and negligently mistaken and that it fits the definition of murder?

[TXSooner518 2455]

So what is the prosecution's theory on motive? Premeditated? Did she know him and did they have issues? Or was she just horribly and negligently mistaken and that it fits the definition of murder?

The last one. Basically in the words of the text she sent her fuck buddy while she was on the phone with 911 “I fucked up”.

[Deej 77676]

4 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

 

The last one. Basically in the words of the text she sent her fuck buddy while she was on the phone with 911 “I fucked up”.

 

So she can text her fuck buddy, but can't help the man down, clinging to life? Fuck that white trash whore. 

[Reagan1k 3041]

I'm no law dog, and can see how a juror would easily go either way on her entering the apartment.

When and why she drew and fired (especially considering her "police training") is what would matter to me.

Take the apartment out of it....was she reasonable in drawing and firing in the given time and distance from him once "startled" and considering her other options since she wasn't cornered?

That's the question in my mind.  Shift the scene to the parking garage or CVS parking lot and he rounds the corner when she didn't expect someone to be there, etc.

That's the question of murder or not in my mind.  Was she reasonable in defending herself in that manner once startled; given the situation and his proximity, or should she have issued a command, backed out, called for assistance?

[Pam Cummings 9825]

I think she shoulda known by the smell of the place. A person always knows the smell of their own home, and this dude's place obviously wouldn't smell the same.

 

You know when shit's off. There are just too many events that should have alerted her to the fact that she was in the wrong unit, imo.

 

Not identifting herself as police is especially egregious.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Pam Cummings

[immortal13 4059]

53 minutes ago, HouTex said:

So what is the prosecution's theory on motive? Premeditated? Did she know him and did they have issues? Or was she just horribly and negligently mistaken and that it fits the definition of murder?

This is where I'm at. Did she majorly fuck up? Yes! Should she ever be a cop again? Fuck no. But I'm just not sure she used this incident as an opportunity to murder a black man. So is that really murder? 

[Deej 77676]

16 minutes ago, Reagan1k said:

I'm no law dog, and can see how a juror would easily go either way on her entering the apartment.

When and why she drew and fired (especially considering her "police training") is what would matter to me.

Take the apartment out of it....was she reasonable in drawing and firing in the given time and distance from him once "startled" and considering her other options since she wasn't cornered?

That's the question in my mind.  Shift the scene to the parking garage or CVS parking lot and he rounds the corner when she didn't expect someone to be there, etc.

That's the question of murder or not in my mind.  Was she reasonable in defending herself in that manner once startled; given the situation and his proximity, or should she have issued a command, backed out, called for assistance?

Should have ended with a "Sorry, my bad." But she felt emboldened by being an LEO.

[bigup2dahorns 3348]

I think she shoulda known by the smell of the place. A person always knows the smell of their own home, and this dude's place obviously wouldn't smell the same.
 
You know when shit's off. There are just too many events that should have alerted her to the fact that she was in the wrong unit, imo.
 
Not identifting herself as police is especially egregious.

A DPD officer familiar with that apartment complex testified that the hallways frequently smelled of weed. It’s become an issue with apartment complexes in Dallas.

[Deej 77676]

Of course a DPD officer testified to that. Rally the troops.

"We smell weed" is the reason for most arrests during a traffic stops, I'd imagine.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Deej

[bigup2dahorns 3348]

Of course a DPD officer testified to that. Rally the troops.
"We smell weed" is the reason for most arrests during a traffic stops, I'd imagine.

Doesn’t make it false. It’s a real thing happening. The prosecution already put on testimony that Jean frequently smoked weed. He’s the only one in a big apartment complex?

[TwiceHorn 31994]

45 minutes ago, Reagan1k said:

I'm no law dog, and can see how a juror would easily go either way on her entering the apartment.

When and why she drew and fired (especially considering her "police training") is what would matter to me.

Take the apartment out of it....was she reasonable in drawing and firing in the given time and distance from him once "startled" and considering her other options since she wasn't cornered?

That's the question in my mind.  Shift the scene to the parking garage or CVS parking lot and he rounds the corner when she didn't expect someone to be there, etc.

That's the question of murder or not in my mind.  Was she reasonable in defending herself in that manner once startled; given the situation and his proximity, or should she have issued a command, backed out, called for assistance?

The question kind of boils down to what kind of instructions the jury is charged with, which partly depends on what evidence is developed at trial.

In a lot of criminal (and civil) cases, the jury instructions and questions are alarmingly succinct considering the complex issues addressed at trial.

I'd really like to see the jury charge in this case.

[rantanamo 143]

27 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

This is where I'm at. Did she majorly fuck up? Yes! Should she ever be a cop again? Fuck no. But I'm just not sure she used this incident as an opportunity to murder a black man. So is that really murder? 

Yall have been watching too many movies. Looking like she shot dude for standing up.  Pretty sure that's not police procedure.  Have we already forgotten about producing weapon?  Imminent threat?  This after ignoring numerous signs that she was in the wrong place.  No, I don't think she was hunting black men for sport or some shit, but Police shoot to kill.  Not sure of what circumstance follows their usual reasoning for firing their weapon(again, to kill).  And then didn't render aid or show any damn concern for dude.  So fuck all the noise.  The actions once that door opened were enough.  She shot him because he was in his apt.  

[Deej 77676]

4 minutes ago, bigup2dahorns said:

 

Doesn’t make it false. It’s a real thing happening. The prosecution already put on testimony that Jean frequently smoked weed. He’s the only one in a big apartment complex?

 

So, pull a firearm if you smell weed. Got it. 

[bigup2dahorns 3348]

So, pull a firearm if you smell weed. Got it. 

Congrats on joining the list of idiotic comments on this thread.