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

[TXSooner518 2432]

1 minute ago, Skipper said:

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. 

I agree also that the fact that she's an LEO does also impose a higher duty. Reasonableness is based from the actor's perspective, and her experience and training should be considered in her response. I was just saying in a general sense if you know "hey I walk around in an oblivious haze", definitely re-establish yourself before killing someone.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

What is DPD's policy on escalation/use of force or whatever? 

[hookem17 485]

Judge will not allow Ranger to testify about the reasonableness of Guyger’s actions. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by hookem17

[bigup2dahorns 3343]

Judge not allowing most of the Ranger testimony

[Continental Op 3934]

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.

Oh shit... Someone tell the family of the guy who got blown the hell away who the REAL victim is here!!!

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

I can't believe this ranger believes it is proper procedure to engage a suspected burglar when there is no risk for physical injury (i.e. - If she believed that that was her apartment, then no one would have been home at the time of entry of a supposed burglar, so there was no one in physical danger that would necessitate a immediate intervention from a single police officer on site).

Judge will not allow that testimony in front of a jury.  Hallelujer!

[SquishMitten 10401]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, it was an offer of proof.

Thank god. I'm sitting here watching that testimony, and I was floored that the State wasn't objecting, strenuously. Didn't realize the jury was out of the room for that. Thought the case had just been lost. 

[Constant 6722]

Just now, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

What is DPD's policy on escalation/use of force or whatever? 

Could you be more specific?

[TXSooner518 2432]

I really like the demeanor of this judge. She's absolutely no nonsense, without coming across as cold or an asshole. 

EDIT: Would have liked to have seen Ranger Armstrong expound on what exactly made Guyger's immediate resort to deadly force reasonable in his opinion, but no need since that opinion is excluded.

Edited September 25, 2019 by TXSooner518

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

Also, for anyone who was satisfied that the Texas Rangers were investigating HPD in the Pecan Park deadly raid, just think, this is one of the assholes that would be investigating police corruption.  I bet his fucking bedding set has a Protect the Blue theme printed on them.  The Us vs. Them mentality extends far beyond local police.

Edited September 25, 2019 by hopkinsnhorns
edit

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

Just now, Constant said:

Could you be more specific?

Is there a policy or training on what the appropriate amount of force to use is before resorting to lethal force? Like would normal DPD training say to use pepper spray or a taser if at all possible (obviously pepper spray in an enclosed location is bad)? I understand that there are some situations where going straight to lethal force is necessary, but is there policy or training to help officers determine when it is and is not neccessary?

[TwiceHorn 31283]

7 minutes ago, Continental Op said:

16 minutes 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.

Oh shit... Someone tell the family of the guy who got blown the hell away who the REAL victim is here!!!

That's not what I said.

The justice system doesn't serve victims, at least not solely.  

One of the reasons our justice system is so fucked is that we work backward from the event. "Oh, this is horrible, someone has to pay."

Edited September 25, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[PilotsError 2282]

2 minutes ago, hopkinsnhorns said:

Also, for anyone who was satisfied that the Texas Rangers were investigating HPD in the Pecan Park deadly raid, just think, this is one of the assholes that would be investigating police corruption.  I bet his fucking bedding set has a Protect the Blue them printed on them.  The Us vs. Them mentality extends far beyond local police.

 

lol yes, and everyone wants them investigating the HPD thing.

[PilotsError 2282]

25 minutes ago, Constant said:

Ranger Armstrong is an impressive witness. 

 

yes of he course the police think he is 

[4th and 5 4914]

3 hours 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?  

 

 

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

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

The STATE has to DISPROVE the defense of self defense  BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

I think  you mean mistake of fact. Not mistake of law. Mistake of law has no application to this case. 

1 hour 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.

There’s no time for all that. See Ranger Armstrong. 

Plus the testimony was there was yelling. 

Cmon dude. Your spiel is tiresome, particularly for a lawyer. 

1 hour 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.

 

 

Proof of the greater culpability is proof of the lesser. But if there is no evidence that the firearm discharge was done anything other than intentionally the judge will not give the charge of criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter.  And hence no lesser included offense for which to be convicted 

1 hour ago, Vic Mackey said:

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. 

Were the lights on? Or are you just assuming

58 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

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.

Negative. 

17 minutes 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?

Yes you’re supposed to follow the law. That’s the jury’s oath and that’s what the jury charge instructs the jury by giving them the law applicable to the case. You don’t start at the result you want and work backwards unless you work for the Texas court of criminal appeals

[TXSooner518 2432]

I'm not seeing why manslaughter or CNH can't be submitted if all elements are present and proof offered. Isn't that the entire point of lesser included? Why would 6.02(e) even exist if they couldn't use it in this way?

[4th and 5 4914]

 Man I can barely keep up with the trial in this thread. Ranger Armstrong is an impressive witness, 

 The judges ruling‘s were correct. It is not reliable scientific testimony to use the position of his shoes to determine his location. That is clearly excludable under Texas rule of evidence 702. 

While I loved his testimony about the reasonableness, it is not proper for him to testify to the ultimate issue that the jury is supposed to decide. The judge’s ruling is correct.

You can count on hearing from Ranger Armstrong again because they did not ask him, in the presence of the jury, about the physiological reactions a person goes through when they perceive a danger. That line of questioning was outside the presence of the jury. He will be re-called during the defense’s case  

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

6 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

You don’t start at the result you want and work backwards unless you work for the Texas court of criminal appeals

Fantastic.

[Constant 6722]

7 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Is there a policy or training on what the appropriate amount of force to use is before resorting to lethal force? Like would normal DPD training say to use pepper spray or a taser if at all possible (obviously pepper spray in an enclosed location is bad)? I understand that there are some situations where going straight to lethal force is necessary, but is there policy or training to help officers determine when it is and is not neccessary?

Yes. There is a lot of training on use of force. There is an outdated continuum that shows levels of force response to levels of subject resistance but that does not apply to most instances of use of force. We abide Graham V Connor which established an objective reasonableness standard which essentially states your use of force needs to be objectively reasonable considering the totality of the circumstances. The scope of the use of deadly force policy for the department is even more strict than Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code. I believe Amber Guyger was fired for violating the use of deadly force policy. 

[AUS-97HORN 11682]

is this jury sequestered? or are they just under orders to not read/discuss the case with anyone outside of the courtroom?

cause if they aint sequestered, there is almost zero chance at least a few of them wont hear from a Sig O, family member, best friend, that "Hey, the Texas Rangers said she was justified to shoot him.   Even if they are following the rules the judge sets, thats the kind of shit that can be offered un-requested to a jury member who is honestly trying to follow the rules and fuck shit up.

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

Just now, AUS-97HORN said:

is this jury sequestered? or are they just under orders to not read/discuss the case with anyone outside of the courtroom?

cause if they aint sequestered, there is almost zero chance at least a few of them wont hear from a Sig O, family member, best friend, that "Hey, the Texas Rangers said she was justified to shoot him.   Even if they are following the rules the judge sets, thats the kind of shit that can be offered un-requested to a jury member who is honestly trying to follow the rules and fuck shit up.

Yes, they are sequestered with no access to outside information or hearsay.

[bigup2dahorns 3343]

. I believe Amber Guyger was fired for violating the use of deadly force policy. 

For the lawyers, I assume this information is admissible at trial and will be used by the prosecution?

['stache 21774]

30 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

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.  

 

Yep, even if its reasonable to walk to the wrong door, which I can at least concede is possible, it's just not reasonable to start blasting without taking a split second to consider the rest. It's just not. 

But at least one juror will "back the blue," another will believe that he's a pothead and therefore not really a victim, and another won't say it but will decide based on his skin color that she reasonably blasted him because he's scary. This might be all one juror, which is enough for her to walk.

Sorry Jean family, she made a boo-boo. Thoughts and prayers, though. 

[TXSooner518 2432]

Just now, hopkinsnhorns said:

Yes, they are sequestered with no access to outside information or hearsay.

how does this work with phones, etc.?

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

2 minutes ago, Constant said:

Yes. There is a lot of training on use of force. There is an outdated continuum that shows levels of force response to levels of subject resistance but that does not apply to most instances of use of force. We abide Graham V Connor which established an objective reasonableness standard which essentially states your use of force needs to be objectively reasonable considering the totality of the circumstances. The scope of the use of deadly force policy for the department is even more strict than Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code. I believe Amber Guyger was fired for violating the use of deadly force policy. 

Thanks. So she was fired for violating the use of force policy related to this incident? Or another one?

[bigup2dahorns 3343]

how does this work with phones, etc.?

First thing they do is take away your Snapchat, obviously.

[PilotsError 2282]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

Yep, even if its reasonable to walk to the wrong door, which I can at least concede is possible, it's just not reasonable to start blasting without taking a split second to consider the rest. It's just not. 

But at least one juror will "back the blue," another will believe that he's a pothead and therefore not really a victim, and another won't say it but will decide based on his skin color that she reasonably blasted him because he's scary. This might be all one juror, which is enough for her to walk.

Sorry Jean family, she made a boo-boo. Thoughts and prayers, though. 

 

Do you even Impressive Witness, bro?  The IW said it was perfectly reasonable.  Why do you hate cops?

[High Plains Drifter 10977]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

 

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.

 

 

What if its a stoner burglar who just found some really really dank KGB?

 

 

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

Just now, TXSooner518 said:

how does this work with phones, etc.?

IANAL but I'm assuming that all personal electronics are surrendered before trial and they don't have access to a phone at the hotel.  Typically, they can only ready books/magazines or watch movies.  No live TV, no newspapers, etc.  I'm not even sure they can talk to family on a phone, and if they do, I suspect the call is audited and/or recorded to make sure they are not violating the terms of the sequestration.

[Constant 6722]

7 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Thanks. So she was fired for violating the use of force policy related to this incident? Or another one?

This incident. The department stated she violated its policies. But the scope of the department’s policies are more narrow.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Constant

[TXSooner518 2432]

3 minutes ago, bigup2dahorns said:

First thing they do is take away your Snapchat, obviously.

 

Guyger and Rivera can offer tips on deleting it.

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

I strenuously suggest that Rivera be referred to from now on as Officer Blinky McDickpic.

[4th and 5 4914]

21 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

I'm not seeing why manslaughter or CNH can't be submitted if all elements are present and proof offered. Isn't that the entire point of lesser included? Why would 6.02(e) even exist if they couldn't use it in this way?

If the firing of the pistol is an intentional or knowing act, and there is no evidence that she did not intend to fire the pistol, then there can be no charge for criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter.

When I say firing of the pistol. I mean applying pressure to the trigger with your finger in an intentional manner, not an unintentional manner, nor am I talking about pulling the trigger and being wrong about the circumstances that led you to pull the trigger. 

There are mountains of case law on this issue. Imagine how many times a murderer wants a charge of manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide by saying I didn’t mean to do it the gun just went off and the Court of Appeals affirming a conviction by saying there’s no evidence that the shooting was unintentional. There has to be some evidence, even if weak,, contradicted,  not credible, to support submitting the charge to the jury That the act was not intentional or knowing

In this case she shot at him twice hitting him once in the chest, clearly an intentional act unless she’s going to testify that she just had her finger on the trigger and she did not intend to pull the trigger......TWICE

Edited September 25, 2019 by 4th and 5

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

Some idiot's phone going off again.  I hope the Judge eviscerates whoever it is who had their phone in the courtroom.

[TXSooner518 2432]

I guess I'm still missing it. You're saying the CCA is affirming murder convictions by saying no evidence that the shooting is unintentional. Sure! Any case law of CCA overruling a manslaughter conviction by saying "nope it was intentional, not reckless"? 

Under Texas law, proof of intent = proof of reckless. The elements of manslaughter are prima facie met under the Penal Code. So unless there is case law of a manslaughter or CNH conviction overturned because the act was intentional not reckless, I'm still missing it.

EDIT: I'm not saying failing to give lesser included would invalidate a murder conviction, but I also don't see how a manslaughter conviction could be overturned as a matter of law. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by TXSooner518

[SquishMitten 10401]

1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

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. 

 

 

But you don't. You're talking about subconsciously knowing the general area of your vehicle and walking towards it. She would similarly know the general area of her door. I don't think anyone has said there's zero chance she could've walked the majority of her path through the halls without noticing any discrepancy. I'd imagine we've all zoned out a bit in similar situations. However, in your scenario, you still pay attention in the last few seconds to make sure you're at the exact spot where you grab the door handle. At a minimum, in your periphery you see the front and sides of your vehicle and judge where the handle is at. You also notice that the car is the same as the one you own. If you have a key fob, your analogy is even worse, but for the sake of argument let's say you don't. If your car was stolen while you were at work and another car parked in the spot afterwards, do you think you would still insert your key into the door of the car that was in your spot? 

The only way I can believe things like the doormat went unnoticed is if there was an overwhelmingly apparent visual marker that she could've caught in her peripheral vision... like if her door was the last or second to last from the end of a hallway where you could instinctively count the number of doors without really looking. I couldn't judge that from the body cam footage I saw, but the hallways all look quite maze-like, so pillars and corners wouldn't be very reliable to use as a subconscious marker. Since so many places look the same, you'd have to use additional visual cues. 

[Zepol87 9171]

Yep such fucking bullshit. 

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

Anyone else find it curious that the State only uses their own black prosecutor to question any of the black civilian witnesses?  I don't know what to make of it, other than that it is unusual.

[royiv 9163]

I don't care whether or not she thought she was at her apartment or not. The fact that I get stuck on is the fact that her split second decision is to draw her gun and start blasting before she assesses the threat. She had ample opportunity to back out of the apartment. There was no clear and present threat to her life. I'm assuming she also had a Taser on her. Instead of drawing that and issuing a command, she pulls her handgun and goes straight for deadly force. As a citizen, that's terrifying.

Edited September 25, 2019 by royiv

[TXSooner518 2432]

1 minute ago, royiv said:

I don't care whether or not she thought she was at her apartment or not. The fact that I get stuck on is the fact that her split second decision is to draw her gun and start blasting before she assesses the threat. She had ample opportunity to back out of the apartment. There was no clear and present threat to her life. I'm assuming she also had a Taser on her. Instead of drawing that and issuing a command, she pulls her handgun and goes straight for deadly force. As a citizen, that's terrifying.

I would be pretty shocked if she had a Taser on her, doubt cops take Tasers home when they get off work generally. She did have a police radio though.

[bigup2dahorns 3343]

Neighbor testimony

[TwiceHorn 31283]

9 minutes ago, hopkinsnhorns said:

Anyone else find it curious that the State only uses their own black prosecutor to question any of the black civilian witnesses?  I don't know what to make of it, other than that it is unusual.

I was wondering who the chick voice was.  If it's "black on black," that seems pretty cynical and obvious.  Maybe she's just a promising young prosecutor being given the softball witnesses in a high-profile trial.

It appears that the story that there was banging and yelling before the shooting is put to rest.  Never bought that.

Edited September 25, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Constant 6722]

Just now, TXSooner518 said:

I would be pretty shocked if she had a Taser on her, doubt cops take Tasers home when they get off work generally. She did have a police radio though.

She would have had her taser on her. We are required to carry one on our duty belt in uniform. It is allowed to be taken home considering we are allowed to be in uniform in transport to home. 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

1 minute ago, Constant said:

She would have had her taser on her. We are required to carry one on our duty belt in uniform. It is allowed to be taken home considering we are allowed to be in uniform in transport to home. 

Is that just a convenience measure, or intended to reflect that you're still sort of on the job until you get home?

[Constant 6722]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Is that just a convenience measure, or intended to reflect that you're still sort of on the job until you get home?

Wearing your uniform home? Convenience for me. Gives me a few more minutes at home before work and out the door faster afterwards. 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

2 minutes ago, Constant said:

Wearing your uniform home? Convenience for me. Gives me a few more minutes at home before work and out the door faster afterwards. 

So, permitted, not required?  So basically only for convenience, doesn't mean anything else.

[tokamak 6352]

38 minutes ago, hopkinsnhorns said:

I strenuously suggest that Rivera be referred to from now on as Officer Blinky McDickpic.

I thought we'd unanimously agreed on Sex Cop.

[Constant 6722]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, permitted, not required?  So basically only for convenience, doesn't mean anything else.

Correct. It’s my choice. 

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

1 minute ago, tokamak said:

I thought we'd unanimously agreed on Sex Cop.

Did you watch his testimony?  Looked like he was trying to send messages by hard blinking in Morse Code.

[tokamak 6352]

13 minutes ago, royiv said:

I don't care whether or not she thought she was at her apartment or not. The fact that I get stuck on is the fact that her split second decision is to draw her gun and start blasting before she assesses the threat. She had ample opportunity to back out of the apartment. There was no clear and present threat to her life. I'm assuming she also had a Taser on her. Instead of drawing that and issuing a command, she pulls her handgun and goes straight for deadly force. As a citizen, that's terrifying.

This is what I keep coming back to. She's literally standing in the doorway as this plays out. Looking at the pictures, he's a good 20+ feet away, starting from either sitting or laying down (not sure). To me, the only reasonable split second action is to back out into the hallway and start yelling commands and/or calling for backup. Even in the event that he's an armed, drug-fueled burglar, that seems like the much safer course of action.

We haven't heard a lot about it yet, but makes me think that the exact status and operation of the door will be important. If the door lock automatically when latched (I suspect that's the case), and she walks up and pushes open what she thinks is her own door, that suggests to me that she should be in a state of heightened awareness.