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

[Catdaddyhorn 3462]

12 minutes ago, rantanamo said:

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.  

Exactly. For some reason I don't remember all this equivocating and but fors when the Somali cop shot that Australian lady in Minnesota. Reading through this thread it makes you wonder how it's possible for anyone to ever get convicted of anything. Apparently the murder he committed was an open and shut case. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Catdaddyhorn

[Deej 77676]

15 minutes ago, bigup2dahorns said:

 

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

 

You seem to be implying that smelling weed seems to be a reason to impose a death sentence.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Deej

[TwiceHorn 31994]

11 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Exactly. For some reason I don't remember all this equivocating and but fors when the Somali cop shot that Australian lady in Minnesota. Reading through this thread it makes you wonder how it's possible for anyone to ever get convicted of anything. Apparently the murder he committed was an open and shut case. 

That was a lot different and more straightforward case. That she may have been mistaken about being in her own home raises issues of self-defense under Texas law that simply weren't applicable, factually or legally, in the Minnesota case.

Edited September 25, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Chewbacca 7827]

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.

Who cares?

[bigup2dahorns 3348]

You seem to be implying that smelling weed seems to be a reason to impose a death sentence.

Done replying to trolling. Weak effort as well.

[pops 7121]

1 hour 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?

But you can't look at it that way. You can't shift it to CVS or parking garage. Either you believe she genuinely thought she was in her apartment and some dude was in there,  or you don't believe she thought she was in her apartment. That's it. No other scenarios matter. 

 

[Braff Zacklin 13675]

How is Jean's use of weed relevant? She was not there serving a warrant or making an arrest. He was not a known criminal to her or anyone else.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Braff Zacklin

[TwiceHorn 31994]

10 minutes ago, Braff Zacklin said:

How is Jean's use of weed relevant? She was not there serving a warrant or making an arrest. He was not a known criminal to her or anyone else.

Well, one theory is the defense wanted to bring it up just to smear him as a giant, scary, dope-addled black man, along with the grey slacks.  In that case, it's dubiously relevant.

However, the state blew the door down on that by introducing his use of the ganj as yet another reason she should have known it wasn't her place.

The defense has attempted to defuse that by evidence that the place reeked 24/7.

[futureman 22667]

so she’s charged with murder but the jury can choose to convict her on lesser charges?  how does that work?  can she still come out of this convicted of manslaughter because she’s not getting convicted of murder.

[TwiceHorn 31994]

14 minutes ago, futureman said:

so she’s charged with murder but the jury can choose to convict her on lesser charges?  how does that work?  can she still come out of this convicted of manslaughter because she’s not getting convicted of murder.

Depends.  I don't know if we have seen the actual indictment, but most indicators are that it is only for murder.

It appears that Manslaughter and Criminally Negligent Homicide can be lesser included offenses of Murder in Texas.

So, even though the indictment only alleges murder,  either side can ask for instructions on manslaughter and CNH as lesser included offenses, if there's some evidence supporting them.

It's a gamble for either side.

[SameSame 1745]

8 hours 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."

You may be slightly hung up on that.  Personally I've also gone to the wrong apartment in my complex twice.  Once, right above me, just got off the elevator on the wrong floor, and my apartment is the one closest to the elevator, so didn't really catch any clues.  Second time was the one right next to mine, just zoning out with earbuds in, didn't notice the number or their floormat.   

[futureman 22667]

it almost seems like something subversive is going on behind the scenes and they charged her with murder simply so that when she’s inevitably exonerated of that charge there will be a reason to gather and protest.  it was a terrible, terrible thing that happened and bless that poor man and his family but for fuck’s sake, it wasn’t murder.  

[Fondren & Main 6871]

3 minutes ago, futureman said:

it almost seems like something subversive is going on behind the scenes and they charged her with murder simply so that when she’s inevitably exonerated of that charge there will be a reason to gather and protest.  it was a terrible, terrible thing that happened and bless that poor man and his family but for fuck’s sake, it wasn’t murder.  

Agreed.

[TwiceHorn 31994]

Well, as we keep saying. murder in Texas is different from common law murder, or laypeople's understanding of murder with "premeditation" and "malice aforethought" and all that.

If you deliberately and knowingly engage in an act intending to kill someone or cause them bodily harm, and they die as a result of the act, then in Texas, that's murder.

Whereas for manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide, the act must be engaged in recklessly, or negligently.  That is, you may not have intended to kill or cause bodily harm, but you were reckless or negligent as to that result.  They don't fit these facts correctly.  She intended to kill or inflict bodily harm and intentionally engaged in the act of shooting him.  Murder straight up.  The fact that she didn't intend to kill a "non-intruder" or "innocent person" in his own home doesn't detract from the fact that it's murder under Texas law.  The sentencing range is 5-99, which is where that gets taken care of.

The jury doesn't have to rely on vague notions of what the crime is or might or should be.  They will be instructed accordingly.

Edited September 25, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[pops 7121]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, as we keep saying. murder in Texas is different from common law murder, or laypeople's understanding of murder with "premeditation" and "malice aforethought" and all that.

If you deliberately and knowingly engage in an act intending to kill someone or cause them bodily harm, and they die as a result of the act, then in Texas, that's murder.

Whereas for manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide, the act must be engaged in recklessly, or negligently.  That is, you may not have intended to kill or cause bodily harm, but you were reckless or negligent as to that result.  They don't fit these facts correctly.  She intended to kill or inflict bodily harm and intentionally engaged in the act of shooting him.  Murder straight up.  The fact that she didn't intend to kill a "non-intruder" or "innocent person" in his own home doesn't detract from the fact that it's murder under Texas law.  The sentencing range is 5-99, which is where that gets taken care of.

The jury doesn't have to rely on vague notions of what the crime is or might or should be.  They will be instructed accordingly.

Yep. Texas murder is weird. She interned to kill him. Therefore murder under Texas law. However, if there is a mistake of fact, i.e, she thought she was killing an intruder in her apartment, then even though it is still murder, it isn't criminal. Lesser offenses just don't fit. 

I don't see anything other than a hung jury here. She should pay. Under Texas law that is tough to do because I doubt all 12 will decide she intended to kill him on purpose without mistaking where she was at. 

[futureman 22667]

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, as we keep saying. murder in Texas is different from common law murder, or laypeople's understanding of murder with "premeditation" and "malice aforethought" and all that.

If you deliberately and knowingly engage in an act intending to kill someone or cause them bodily harm, and they die as a result of the act, then in Texas, that's murder.

Whereas for manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide, the act must be engaged in recklessly, or negligently.  That is, you may not have intended to kill or cause bodily harm, but you were reckless or negligent as to that result.  They don't fit these facts correctly.  She intended to kill or inflict bodily harm and intentionally engaged in the act of shooting him.  Murder straight up.  The fact that she didn't intend to kill a "non-intruder" or "innocent person" in his own home doesn't detract from the fact that it's murder under Texas law.  The sentencing range is 5-99, which is where that gets taken care of.

The jury doesn't have to rely on vague notions of what the crime is or might or should be.  They will be instructed accordingly.

[kibbles 70]

It is a fascinating case and I'm glad to read the opinions of y'all who actually know the law.   I'm firmly on the guilty side but an acquittal seems likely.  

I live a mile from the courthouse so the aftermath will hit close to home.  Feels like a storm could be brewing.  

[Guest Lobo]

After these first two days, what do you criminal law folks think will be an approximate timeframe on how long this case will take to turn over to the jury?  Approximately?  Days?  Weeks?  Months?  

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4998]

5 hours ago, pops said:

Yep. Texas murder is weird. She interned to kill him. Therefore murder under Texas law. However, if there is a mistake of fact, i.e, she thought she was killing an intruder in her apartment, then even though it is still murder, it isn't criminal. Lesser offenses just don't fit. 

I don't see anything other than a hung jury here. She should pay. Under Texas law that is tough to do because I doubt all 12 will decide she intended to kill him on purpose without mistaking where she was at. 

The Klansmen be reading that and thinking, "how can I go and get me one of those internships..."

[Pam Cummings 9825]

9 hours ago, bigup2dahorns said:

 

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.

 

Yeah but she didn't smoke weed. To a non-smoker, their nose is more sensitive to the smell. And it's not like smoking a bowl or whatever the guy was doing would smell up the entire complex. There would be an odor that would get stronger as you got to his door. And once you opened the door, it would be obvious that his unit was the source of the smell.

 

So unless everyone who smokes weed in that apartment complex all agreed to some rule where they all light up at the exact same time, that argument is bullshit to me.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Pam Cummings

[Pam Cummings 9825]

7 hours ago, futureman said:

it almost seems like something subversive is going on behind the scenes and they charged her with murder simply so that when she’s inevitably exonerated of that charge there will be a reason to gather and protest.  it was a terrible, terrible thing that happened and bless that poor man and his family but for fuck’s sake, it wasn’t murder.  

I mean, i feel for her. I really do. I actually kind of buy that she's just an idiot.

 

But is that really an excuse? Can i just commit a crime and tell the judge "i'm dumb and i didn't know any better. Please don't convict"?

[Guest Lobo]

"it's become an issue with apartment complexes in Dallas"

Really, detective?  People living in multi-family developments, who skew younger, in a very large U.S. city, have begun using marijuana in larger numbers?  

This guy has Chief of Police written all over him.  I mean with deductive reasoning powers like this, it's inevitable.  

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4998]

30 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

Yeah but she didn't smoke weed. To a non-smoker, their nose is more sensitive to the smell. And it's not like smoking a bowl or whatever the guy was doing would smell up the entire complex. There would be an odor that would get stronger as you got to his door. And once you opened the door, it would be obvious that his unit was the source of the smell.

 

So unless everyone who smokes weed in that apartment complex all agreed to some rule where they all light up at the exact same time, that argument is bullshit to me.

She hasn't smoked weed recently enough for it to show up in the toxicology report. I've seen a cop light one up before.

[bschoolprof 6339]

I understand why she was charged with murder and not manslaughter due to the intent element in Texas.

Another question for the law dogs: how does this charge interact with self defense and mistake of fact defense?

In general, does it work like this (say, if she correctly went to her apartment and a stranger was there): 1) you are charged with murder for intentionally killing another person; 2) you raise self defense because the use of force was justified.  I assume the burden is on the defendant to prove the use of force was reasonable in 2.  Or is it?

But in this case, it goes several steps further: 1) she is charged with murder for intentionally killing another person; 2) she raises self defense because the use of force was justified, 3) but wait, it wasn't justified because it wasn't her house and he was not a burglar, 4) but wait, that mistake in 3) was "reasonable" given the circumstances.  Is that kinda sorta what's going on legally?  

 

[AUS-97HORN 11991]

The part that I know cant be asked during the trial, but I honestly think is highly relevant, would be this.

 

assuming EVERYTHING in this situation is identical except Guyger is a legal CCH instead of being a cop.

would she be allowed to act in the same way, and use the mistake of fact defense as well?

Or is the reason she is able to use this defense mostly predicated upon the fact that she is a cop "sworn to uphold the law", and thus shes allowed to go blasting if she thinks something is wrong, and can claim oops afterwards?

 

because I just cant see this exact same scenario going down with a normal CCH doing the same thing in their apt complex without the CCH being easily convicted of murder.

[futureman 22667]

54 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

I mean, i feel for her. I really do. I actually kind of buy that she's just an idiot.

But is that really an excuse? Can i just commit a crime and tell the judge "i'm dumb and i didn't know any better. Please don't convict"?

I was arguing that it should be manslaughter not murder.  according to twice it actually can be murder in texas.  I do think she should do some time for making a mistake that cost someone their life.

[TwiceHorn 31994]

44 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

I understand why she was charged with murder and not manslaughter due to the intent element in Texas.

Another question for the law dogs: how does this charge interact with self defense and mistake of fact defense?

In general, does it work like this (say, if she correctly went to her apartment and a stranger was there): 1) you are charged with murder for intentionally killing another person; 2) you raise self defense because the use of force was justified.  I assume the burden is on the defendant to prove the use of force was reasonable in 2.  Or is it?

But in this case, it goes several steps further: 1) she is charged with murder for intentionally killing another person; 2) she raises self defense because the use of force was justified, 3) but wait, it wasn't justified because it wasn't her house and he was not a burglar, 4) but wait, that mistake in 3) was "reasonable" given the circumstances.  Is that kinda sorta what's going on legally?  

 

It would appear, that your final paragraph hits it.  It's murder, but due to the mistake of fact issue, may trigger self-defense provisions of Texas law.

There's a hitch, though.  As defined by the Penal Code, "mistake of fact" provides a defense if a reasonable mistake prevents the "kind of culpability" necessary for the charged offense.  That could mean mental state only, or something like this.

Quote

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 if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability 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.

There's likely to be a juicy appeal on this if a conviction.

[TwiceHorn 31994]

47 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

The part that I know cant be asked during the trial, but I honestly think is highly relevant, would be this.

 

assuming EVERYTHING in this situation is identical except Guyger is a legal CCH instead of being a cop.

would she be allowed to act in the same way, and use the mistake of fact defense as well?

Or is the reason she is able to use this defense mostly predicated upon the fact that she is a cop "sworn to uphold the law", and thus shes allowed to go blasting if she thinks something is wrong, and can claim oops afterwards?

 

because I just cant see this exact same scenario going down with a normal CCH doing the same thing in their apt complex without the CCH being easily convicted of murder.

Nothing to do with her being a cop.  Anyone could try to invoke this.

The second hitch is, if mistake of law permits her to invoke self-defense, does it permit her to invoke the presumptively reasonable parts of the self-defense laws?  That is, in some circumstances, a homeowner's use of deadly force against an intruder in their home is PRESUMED reasonable.  No proof is required that it was reasonable.  Although I think the state can try to prove that it was not.

This is like an evil, sadistic criminal law exam question.

In any event, there are two stages where the jury will consider the reasonableness of her actions:  the mistaken apartment, and the shooting rather than withdrawing.  It is not clear whether reasonableness on the latter is by ordinary person or trained cop standard.

Edited September 25, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Orange&White 5563]

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Nothing to do with her being a cop.  Anyone could try to invoke this.

Sure, anyone can legally invoke it, but anyone besides a cop is going to be laughed out of the courtroom and straight into the prison cell.

 

[hookem17 485]

Day 3 starting. One of the jurors has a “professional relationship” with one of yesterday’s witness. May have to dismiss the juror. 

[PilotsError 2339]

I hope her social media shit comes in.  She was openly bragging with memes about being locked and loaded and ready to kill.

[bernorange 8385]

There is no way anyone is going to convince me that Guyger's actions, post entry, were reasonable. 

I also think Guyger herself knew they weren't reasonable (after the fact). "I fucked up." is, IMO, an admission.

[SquishMitten 10493]

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.

Think about how you would get to your apartment. Do you step off the elevator and count your steps? Do you count the seconds it takes to walk? How would you ever distinguish your door from all the others that look exactly the same? You use doormats, room numbers, signs on your door, or plants in the hallway. You don’t auto-pilot your way from car to door based on a gut feeling. You would ALWAYS have to use some sort of visual marker. All of her visual markers were off/absent.

[Fuck Tim Beck 3892]

No way someone who isn't a cop gets the same treatment she did post shooting. A civilian would have been arrested on the spot. Unfortunately the system is what it is 

[Brisketexan 106640]

Three points brought up recently that I think are strong:

1 - the sensory cue of smell told her she was in the wrong place.  Smell is a POWERFUL scent.  Weed is pungent.  This isn't "general odor in the hallway."  This is smoke in the very same room. Walking in that door, she would have been hit with the scent of weed.  A burglar doesn't break in to sit down and have a smoke.  Smelling weed was a huge indicator that she was not in her place. To heck with the doormat.  The smell was a hard stop.

2 - her reaction from entry to "SHOOT!" was instant.  No commands, no evaluation of the scene, no retreat to a safe position.  Enter...millisecond....kill.  That's the entire sequence.  She didn't do ANYTHING -- not ONE THING -- that would have prevented death.

3 - her reaction after she KNEW she shot an innocent man....let him lay on the floor and bleed to death.  Even though she is trained, she offered ZERO first aid.  She didn't try to staunch bleeding....nothing.   She shot him.  And left him to die.  I say she did so because she knew that a dead man can't contradict her story.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Brisketexan

[TwiceHorn 31994]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Three points brought up recently that I think are strong:

1 - the sensory cue of smell told her she was in the wrong place.  Smell is a POWERFUL scent.  Weed is pungent.  This isn't "general odor in the hallway."  This is smoke in the very same room. Walking in that door, she would have been hit with the scent of weed.  A burglar doesn't break in to sit down and have a smoke.  Smelling weed was a huge indicator that she was not in her place.

2 - her reaction from entry to "SHOOT!" was instant.  No commands, no evaluation of the scene, no retreat to a safe position.  Enter...millisecond....kill.  That's the entire sequence.  She didn't do ANYTHING -- not ONE THING -- that would have prevented death.

3 - her reaction after she KNEW she shot an innocent man....let him lay on the floor and bleed to death.  Even though she is trained, she offered ZERO first aid.  She didn't try to staunch bleeding....nothing.   She shot him.  And left him to die.  I say she did so because she knew that a dead man can't contradict her story.

*stanch

Scipio made the same mistake recently.  Heil grammar! 

Also, Hanlon's Razor.  She was full of bluster and bravado, but when the rubber hit the road, massively fearful, vapid, and grotesquely incompetent.  But probably not malicious.

Edited September 25, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TXSooner518 2455]

She can be convicted of manslaughter even if she acted intentionally. Penal Code 6.02(e):

(e) Proof of a higher degree of culpability than that charged constitutes proof of the culpability charged.

This means proof of "intentional' act, by definition, satisfies requirement of "reckless" for manslaughter or "criminally negligent" for CNH.

 

 

[miguelito 11451]

Do we know that her apartment didn't smell like weed?  If the whole complex was full of smokers, maybe that wouldn't have been such a signal of a wrong apartment.

I'm sure the day after the shooting, her apartment smelled like flowers and freedom.  But the day of?

[hookem17 485]

Based on this line of questioning to the Texas Ranger, it sounds like we’re going to get a comparison of the layouts of the apartments. 

[immortal13 4059]

48 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

Sure, anyone can legally invoke it, but anyone besides a cop is going to be laughed out of the courtroom and straight into the prison cell.

 

This

[Brisketexan 106640]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

*stanch

Scipio made the same mistake recently.  Heil grammar! 

Godfuckingdammit.  Point to Twice.

[Zepol87 9308]

8 hours ago, kibbles said:

It is a fascinating case and I'm glad to read the opinions of y'all who actually know the law.   I'm firmly on the guilty side but an acquittal seems likely.  

I live a mile from the courthouse so the aftermath will hit close to home.  Feels like a storm could be brewing.  

Yea I enjoy reading the opinions on this stuff as well. I know jack shit about the law. 

I mean as she was walking up she could smell weed? That should have tipped her off that shit, let me double check that this is my apartment. My building is a similar build out and I have parked on the wrong floor of the garage before but I have only gone to the apartment directly under me once thinking it was mine and I was completely fucking blackout hammered. 

[immortal13 4059]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Three points brought up recently that I think are strong:

1 - the sensory cue of smell told her she was in the wrong place.  Smell is a POWERFUL scent.  Weed is pungent.  This isn't "general odor in the hallway."  This is smoke in the very same room. Walking in that door, she would have been hit with the scent of weed.  A burglar doesn't break in to sit down and have a smoke.  Smelling weed was a huge indicator that she was not in her place. To heck with the doormat.  The smell was a hard stop.

2 - her reaction from entry to "SHOOT!" was instant.  No commands, no evaluation of the scene, no retreat to a safe position.  Enter...millisecond....kill.  That's the entire sequence.  She didn't do ANYTHING -- not ONE THING -- that would have prevented death.

3 - her reaction after she KNEW she shot an innocent man....let him lay on the floor and bleed to death.  Even though she is trained, she offered ZERO first aid.  She didn't try to staunch bleeding....nothing.   She shot him.  And left him to die.  I say she did so because she knew that a dead man can't contradict her story.

As to your point #2, do you think she panicked? If so, do you think that might have anything to do with her being a woman?

[TwiceHorn 31994]

12 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

She can be convicted of manslaughter even if she acted intentionally. Penal Code 6.02(e):

(e) Proof of a higher degree of culpability than that charged constitutes proof of the culpability charged.

This means proof of "intentional' act, by definition, satisfies requirement of "reckless" for manslaughter or "criminally negligent" for CNH.

 

 

So that knocks it down from 1st Degree (5-99), to 2nd Degree (2-20), to State Jail (6mos to 2 years), respectively.

And does some other stuff.  As 4th pointed out, no bail pending appeal for murder, I don't think probation/deferred is available for murder, etc.

 

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31994]

2 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

As to your point #2, do you think she panicked? If so, do you think that might have anything to do with her being a woman?

Certainly means she shouldn't have been a cop, regardless of gender.

[Constant 6844]

7 minutes ago, Zepol87 said:

Yea I enjoy reading the opinions on this stuff as well. I know jack shit about the law. 

I mean as she was walking up she could smell weed? That should have tipped her off that shit, let me double check that this is my apartment. My building is a similar build out and I have parked on the wrong floor of the garage before but I have only gone to the apartment directly under me once thinking it was mine and I was completely fucking blackout hammered. 

Hopefully on separate occasions. 

[Brisketexan 106640]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Certainly means she shouldn't have been a cop, regardless of gender.

I'm interested in what the whole "she was trained and following procedure" angle will show.  Because is it standard DPD procedure that you don't identify yourself and order the suspect to stand-down, freeze, etc.?  Is it standard DPD procedure to see a shape and shoot at it with zero warning?  I doubt it.  Which means that she did NOT follow DPD procedure.  Which means that for a person of her training and experience, her reaction was NOT reasonable.

This is no different than any other bad shooting by a cop.  She could have been on the street, and seen a guy approaching a car, thinking it's her car and he's going to steal it.  She just immediately pulls out her gun and shoots him dead, no identification as a cop, no warning, no options given.  Then it turns out he also had a gray Chevy Malibu.  Ooops! I fucked up!  No you fucking didn't.  You murdered a guy.

[Zepol87 9308]

7 minutes ago, Constant said:

Hopefully on separate occasions. 

Yea for sure. The wrong apt was after a pool party at my place that got out of hand for a bit. 

[hookem17 485]

There’s more pictures of the apartments on that twitter account. 

Edit: Top photo is Jean’s apartment. Bottom is Guyger’s. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by hookem17

[Fuck Tim Beck 3892]

Those are some small ass apartments. 

Also, clean every once in a while . Savages