Jump to content

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

'stache

By 'stache
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Constant
Constant

First off I’d like to say that I’m heartbroken for the Jean family. As a parent myself, I hope Mr. Jean’s father and mother find some peace in the outcome. They appear to be a wonderful family that ra

SubliminalHorn
SubliminalHorn

Just relax the throat and stay in rhythm 

4th&Five
4th&Five

Posted Images

Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104624

Posted
Posted

And, for the criminal law types -- if it is determined that her failure to fully ascertain her surroundings, and/or her failure to identify herself/order the suspect to freeze etc., and/or her failure to retreat instead of instantly shooting, was reckless or negligent....can she be convicted of manslaughter or CNH?  We know the act of firing was intentional, but the collective actions - firing without adequately ascertaining the situation etc. - were reckless/negligent.

And yes, I know we've discussed this broadly before.  I'm wondering if we've maybe refined it a bit so that it might fit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gsoda3

gsoda3 3236

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

You don’t auto-pilot your way from car to door based on a gut feeling. 

 

i auto-pilot from my office door to my car.  on the days i park in the back instead of the front i always have to turn around and go back.  not only that, i drive on auto-pilot too and forget i'm not going to where i think i'm going.  i'm sure a lot of people do as well. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vic Mackey

Vic Mackey 46936

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, hookem17 said:

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

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

Most of these apartments have the same layouts. But how about what it looks like inside. The 2 pictures have so many differences that you should easily notice when entering. He had no plants on the stand to the left side. He had a computer area directly to the back. She had a trashcan by her counter/desk. He did not. And I could on and on but the point is made. And this is just by looking at some grainy looking pics. The differences would be even more obvious had you stepped in person. So a burglar is going to completely re-do the furnishing and just be chilling . Riiiiight. 

Edited by Vic Mackey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSooner518

TXSooner518 2432

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

And, for the criminal law types -- if it is determined that her failure to fully ascertain her surroundings, and/or her failure to identify herself/order the suspect to freeze etc., and/or her failure to retreat instead of instantly shooting, was reckless or negligent....can she be convicted of manslaughter or CNH?  We know the act of firing was intentional, but the collective actions - firing without adequately ascertaining the situation etc. - were reckless/negligent.

And yes, I know we've discussed this broadly before.  I'm wondering if we've maybe refined it a bit so that it might fit?

Under PC 6.02(e), by definition, she can be convicted of manslaughter or CNH if it is shown she intentionally caused the death of another, because the only element different from those is the culpable mental state. 6.02(e) says proof of a higher mental state than required constitutes proof of the required mental state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31282

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And, for the criminal law types -- if it is determined that her failure to fully ascertain her surroundings, and/or her failure to identify herself/order the suspect to freeze etc., and/or her failure to retreat instead of instantly shooting, was reckless or negligent....can she be convicted of manslaughter or CNH?  We know the act of firing was intentional, but the collective actions - firing without adequately ascertaining the situation etc. - were reckless/negligent.

And yes, I know we've discussed this broadly before.  I'm wondering if we've maybe refined it a bit so that it might fit?

As 4th has pointed out, self-defense in response to manslaughter or CNH is bizarre if not legally untenable.

The theory most seem to be going on is it's murder, but by combining mistake of fact and self-defense, it becomes justified or excused, but only if her mistake and reactions once in the apartment were reasonable.

But then man and CNH require some examination of the reasonablensess of her actions, but I tend to think at a different point than the act that caused the death.

If it's not murder, I don't think you can get to self-defense by any "road."

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BigDHornfan

BigDHornfan 6541

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, kevwun said:

So she shot him as soon as he got up off the couch on the other side of the room.  And how the fuck do you miss there not being a counter in the middle of the room?  She should have backed up in to the hallway at that point instead of blasting away.

Counter is in his apt as well.  pictures were taken at different depths into the apts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSooner518

TXSooner518 2432

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, kevwun said:

So she shot him as soon as he got up off the couch on the other side of the room.  And how the fuck do you miss there not being a counter in the middle of the room?  She should have backed up in to the hallway at that point instead of blasting away.

Agree generally, but there's a counter in both apartments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kevwun

kevwun 15652

Posted
Posted (edited)

If a cop shows up at burglary and has reason to believe the burglar could still be in the house, they call for backup and wait.  That is what she should have done here.  Her door wasn't closed and the tv was on.  She should have never walked all the way in to the apartment.

Edited by kevwun
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSooner518

TXSooner518 2432

Posted
Posted

I still just don't understand this concept - if the floors are THAT indistinguishable, why the hell do people not actually pay attention and check?  I mean, you know how many ramps you go up if you pay attention. 

I drive a crimson two door Mazda. I do understand the idea of going up to the wrong crimson two door Mazda and opening it, thinking it's my car (also if a person is in the car, maybe evaluate further before executing them immediately).  However, if I went to an event for owners of crimson two door Mazdas, such that every car in the lot was a crimson two door Mazda, I would, hmm, verify it's my car before getting into it. The sameness means I have to check closer.

I honestly think her "zombie out" claim is a bit better if they did have big giant floor numbers, because I think it's more reasonable to zone out and miss something that you are aware of vs. knowing that every single floor looks the same and still just assuming you're on your own floor. If you did that, you would be on the wrong floor 67% of the time, assuming even a zombie knows the 1st floor isn't right when you live on 3.

Also, the defense argued oh she just saw an empty parking space by the entrance and grabbed it. She had already passed her floor when she saw that space. It would make more sense if she lived on 4, and saw the space on 3 and the greatness of the space made her temporarily forget she was one floor off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gene Parmesan

Gene Parmesan 3993

Posted
Posted

I think it's reasonable to end up at the wrong apartment.  I just don't think a reasonable mistake of fact should get you off from killing someone.  Killing someone when you are in the wrong should always have a consequence.  So if I am on the jury and following the letter of the law would I have to go not guilty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skipper

Skipper 6103

Posted
Posted (edited)

Considering the constant arguing in this thread between people that can't fathom missing all of the cues she missed to go to the wrong apt. vs. the people that zone out and could absolutely see themselves making the same mistake, I can only imagine the jury deliberations.  Neither side is going to convince the other they are right because neither side is right.   My wife would likely never make the mistake Amber did.  I absolutely could.   People are wired differently.  It's really that fucking simple.   So the jury is going to have the same mix of people.   That's why I continue to think it's going to be all about whether her actions were reasonable the second she opened the door.

Edited by Skipper
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSooner518

TXSooner518 2432

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One thing I didn't realize is that she had only lived there two months, since July.

Perhaps if you had been there longer, you'd realize that knowing where you are is a bigger issue.

That's still a minimum of 40 times she's come home from work, not counting other times she has come and gone. Either it isn't that confusing, or she should have realized it's confusing by now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trey3216

Trey3216 15325

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

I still just don't understand this concept - if the floors are THAT indistinguishable, why the hell do people not actually pay attention and check?  I mean, you know how many ramps you go up if you pay attention. 

I drive a crimson two door Mazda. I do understand the idea of going up to the wrong crimson two door Mazda and opening it, thinking it's my car (also if a person is in the car, maybe evaluate further before executing them immediately).  However, if I went to an event for owners of crimson two door Mazdas, such that every car in the lot was a crimson two door Mazda, I would, hmm, verify it's my car before getting into it. The sameness means I have to check closer.

I honestly think her "zombie out" claim is a bit better if they did have big giant floor numbers, because I think it's more reasonable to zone out and miss something that you are aware of vs. knowing that every single floor looks the same and still just assuming you're on your own floor. If you did that, you would be on the wrong floor 67% of the time, assuming even a zombie knows the 1st floor isn't right when you live on 3.

Also, the defense argued oh she just saw an empty parking space by the entrance and grabbed it. She had already passed her floor when she saw that space. It would make more sense if she lived on 4, and saw the space on 3 and the greatness of the space made her temporarily forget she was one floor off.

You think a woman knows how many ramps she goes up?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pops

pops 6974

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, kevwun said:

If a cop shows up at burglary and has reason to believe the burglar could still be in the house, they call for backup and wait.  That is what she should have done here.  Her door wasn't closed and the tv was on.  She should have never walked all the way in to the apartment.

I don't disagree, but if it actually had been her apartment we aren't talking about a cop showing up at a burglary scene. We are talking about a tired chick with a gun showing up at her house and someone is in there. If she actually had been in her apartment, she would have been completely within her rights to kill the dude. No questions asked. Not required to retreat. Not required to call for backup. 

It's a fucked up situation. An innocent man is dead. I completely think she needs to pay. I don't know if the law as written in Texas covers this situation adequately. Therefore I predict a shitstorm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSooner518

TXSooner518 2432

Posted
Posted
Just now, Skipper said:

Considering the constant arguing in this thread between people that can't fathom missing all of the cues she missed to go to the wrong apt. vs. the people that zone out and could absolutely see themselves making the same mistake, I can only imagine the jury deliberations.  Neither side is going to convince the other one is right because neither side is right.   My wife would likely never make the mistake Amber did.  I absolutely could.   People are wired differently.  It's really that fucking simple.   So the jury is going to have the same mix of people.   That's why I continue to think it's going to be all about whether her actions were reasonable the second she opened the door.

Agree in general with this. I also think if you're a person who zones out and is capable of being oblivious to all of those things, you would have a bit more duty to ascertain what the fuck is actually happening before taking fire. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bschoolprof

bschoolprof 6232

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Gene Parmesan said:

I think it's reasonable to end up at the wrong apartment.  I just don't think a reasonable mistake of fact should get you off from killing someone.  Killing someone when you are in the wrong should always have a consequence.  So if I am on the jury and following the letter of the law would I have to go not guilty?

If you think it's reasonable that she:

1) went to the wrong apartment

2) quickly concluded the man there was an intruder

3) an act of deadly force was needed to protect herself

then yes (I think).   

I think 1) is possibly reasonable.   I do not think 2 and 3 are reasonable.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31282

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Gene Parmesan said:

I think it's reasonable to end up at the wrong apartment.  I just don't think a reasonable mistake of fact should get you off from killing someone.  Killing someone when you are in the wrong should always have a consequence.  So if I am on the jury and following the letter of the law would I have to go not guilty?

Very possibly (on the not guilty).  

While it may not be the consequence you desire, to say that this is without consequence is foolish.  She's been the subject of scrutiny, ridicule, and contempt for a year.  And, thanks to the internet, she will probably never live this down. She's having to sit through this trial, which is something not to be sneezed at.  She's going to have to sit through a civil trial.

Apparently, she hasn't had to pay for her attorneys, but for many, this would be financially ruinous, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSooner518

TXSooner518 2432

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, pops said:

I don't disagree, but if it actually had been her apartment we aren't talking about a cop showing up at a burglary scene. We are talking about a tired chick with a gun showing up at her house and someone is in there. If she actually had been in her apartment, she would have been completely within her rights to kill the dude. No questions asked. Not required to retreat. Not required to call for backup. 

It's a fucked up situation. An innocent man is dead. I completely think she needs to pay. I don't know if the law as written in Texas covers this situation adequately. Therefore I predict a shitstorm. 

Not necessarily completely within her rights to kill the dude. Even in her own apartment, she can only use deadly force if she reasonably is in fear of imminent serious bodily injury or death. Sitting on a couch, unarmed, eating ice cream might not meet that standard.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kevwun

kevwun 15652

Posted
Posted (edited)

She had no business being a cop if she randomly stumbles around through her day oblivious to her surroundings.

2 minutes ago, hookem17 said:

The Ranger agreed with defense counsel that her reaction to shoot at a perceived threat was reasonable, and that she didn’t have time to get to cover or call for backup. 

If only there was a door behind her that led to a hallway where she would have had cover and more time to think.

Edited by kevwun
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSooner518

TXSooner518 2432

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, hookem17 said:

Ranger agrees it was reasonable for her to conclude Jean was an intruder and threat. Very bad for the State. 

I was out of the stream for a bit. Is this testimony before the jury, or is this still opinion testimony that the Judge wasn't going to allow before the jury, offered for record only?

EDIT: Yeah, this testimony isn't in front of the jury.

Edited by TXSooner518
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gene Parmesan

Gene Parmesan 3993

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Very possibly (on the not guilty).  

While it may not be the consequence you desire, to say that this is without consequence is foolish.  She's been the subject of scrutiny, ridicule, and contempt for a year.  And, thanks to the internet, she will probably never live this down. She's having to sit through this trial, which is something not to be sneezed at.  She's going to have to sit through a civil trial.

Apparently, she hasn't had to pay for her attorneys, but for many, this would be financially ruinous, as well.

Fair enough on the without consequences comment, but I still think taking a life when you are in the wrong merits prison time as a consequence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31282

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, TXSooner518 said:

I was out of the stream for a bit. Is this testimony before the jury, or is this still opinion testimony that the Judge wasn't going to allow before the jury, offered for record only?

No, it was an offer of proof.

For the peanut gallery, the Ranger was going to offer his opinion on all this, but the judge excluded it.  For appeal purposes, you have to get the testimony on the record outside the presence of the jury so the appellate court can rule on the propriety of the judge's decision excluding it.  That's an offer of proof.

None of these opinions were rendered to the jury.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skipper

Skipper 6103

Posted
Posted
Just now, TXSooner518 said:

Agree in general with this. I also think if you're a person who zones out and is capable of being oblivious to all of those things, you would have a bit more duty to ascertain what the fuck is actually happening before taking fire. 

I don't think the duty lies with the fact she zoned out. I think the duty lies with the fact that she's an LEO and should be better trained to assess a threat before firing.    That's why I disagree with the person that posted a few pages back that thinks she will get off because she's a cop and not a normal CHL owner.   I think it's the opposite.   If I'm in the jury and there is a normal petite female CHL owner that has never been in a situation where there has been a threat before, I MIGHT be able to get there that firing was a panic response.    As a cop, she's TRAINED to assess the risk before firing a weapon.  It's going to be very hard to convince me she acted reasonable as a trained law enforcement officer.   I agree it will help if they show she didn't follow procedures, but I don't think I would even need that.  She should be held to a higher standard because of her experience and training compared to someone that has never faced a threat or trained for that scenario. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hookem17

hookem17 485

Posted
Posted
Just now, TXSooner518 said:

I was out of the stream for a bit. Is this testimony before the jury, or is this still opinion testimony that the Judge wasn't going to allow before the jury, offered for record only?

I was out for a bit but it  now appears you are correct. Jury is not hearing the Ranger’s testimony. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PilotsError

PilotsError 2282

Posted
Posted

Yep she's walking, if this testimony was in front of the jury.  All that matters is a cop feared for her life.  Doesn't matter the situation, nuance, timing, duration, possible retreat.  A cop was in fear, and it's acceptable to fire and kill the perceived threat.  Immediately.

The Ranger just gave the case to her.  If the jury heard it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...