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

[TXSooner518 2455]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Other than the victim, it sure seems like the loser in this case is DPD.  If this is what your "top notch LEO training" produces, we might be better off handing out badges and guns to people at random.

Not to mention the hefty legal bill for this skullfucking.

[TwiceHorn 31994]

Defense badly wanted a break there, but can't afford to take it.

[SameSame 1745]

1 hour ago, hopkinsnhorns said:

"I heard noises inside my apartment."  But it wasn't your apartment.

That bitch must have great ears.

[Zombie 284]

Not your apartment bitch!

[bluto 4980]

Redirect starts and she immediately goes back into “I’m getting verklempt!!” mode

[smuggs 9394]

She made a terrible mistake. I'm sure she is remorseful and I feel sorry for her that she has to live with it. But this is a complete breakdown of training from start to finish. She needs to serve time.

[TwiceHorn 31994]

2 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Not to mention the hefty legal bill for this skullfucking.

DPA not DPD.  I assume.

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

4 minutes ago, Zombie said:

She could have treated him with her medical kit and then didn't bother? Fuck you cunt!

She was too busy deleting her PornHub history and cancelling her booty call. #Prioritites

Edited September 27, 2019 by hopkinsnhorns

[Zombie 284]

Prosecutor follow up question: "Do you think police officers are justified in killing innocent civilians because they're tired and not paying attention to their surroundings?"

[TXSooner518 2455]

Hmmm maybe the codename for Blinky's cock was Sternum, that's why she was immediately prepared with the Sternum Rub but literally nothing else.

[TXSooner518 2455]

If you were scared that he was going to kill you, why not, hmmmmmmmm GO BACK OUT THROUGH THE DOOR THAT YOU HAVE SAID AUTOMATICALLY CLOSES BEHIND YOU.

[hayden_horn 11401]

6 minutes ago, RPM said:

Oh shit, she had a battle dressing and didn't use it on Jean.

 

5 minutes ago, smuggs said:

She had a first aid kit on her, lol. Wow.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Zombie said:

She could have treated him with her medical kit and then didn't bother? Fuck you cunt!

wow.

i just.

wow.

is it an unspoken rule in copland that once you shoot someone, you don't treat them? like a "dead men tell no tales" sort of thing? because the responding cops went right in and tried to treat this dude.

i'm not following the stream, but i'm constantly in awe of the facts as they come out. it could not go worse for her. 

think about how different this whole thing is if the responding cops show up and she's keeping him alive.

jesus.

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

Her mind was racing, and pacing, and plotting a course.

[Tailgate 3054]

“I was scared he was going to come at me.” In other words, he wasn’t yet...

I’m not sure how any juror would be thinking anything but guilty at this time and with previous examining.

[RPM 26565]

Nobody should ever have to go through WHAT I had to go through that night.

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

I feel sorry that she has to deal with these consequences, but not so sorry as to absolve her of her responsibility of causing this entire clusterfuck.  In my mind she's guilty, minimum sentence of 5 years (no early release) with a stipulation that she can never be allowed to carry a gun or act as a peace officer ever again.

[Seasick Sailor 3747]

Damn it. I don't know what 317 and 320 say. Read that shit!

[Zombie 284]

I find it interesting that attorneys are discussing issues on tv that should or shouldn't be allowed.

[Skipper 6406]

Damn I want to know what these text messages say that they aren't letting in.

[Cousin Strawberry 1273]

What comment did she make about MLK?

 

[Fuck Tim Beck 3892]

Was the defenses whole plan "well she's a cop and cops are above the law and never punished"? 

I hope this turns out to be a watershed moment where this bitch ruins the free ride for all other cops. But it won't be 

[Red Six 131]

3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

 

 

wow.

i just.

wow.

is it an unspoken rule in copland that once you shoot someone, you don't treat them? like a "dead men tell no tales" sort of thing? because the responding cops went right in and tried to treat this dude.

i'm not following the stream, but i'm constantly in awe of the facts as they come out. it could not go worse for her. 

think about how different this whole thing is if the responding cops show up and she's keeping him alive.

jesus.

I think the protocol is to make sure they are unarmed, make sure they are incapacitated, then, if both of those are the case, begin life-saving measures.

I can't tell if she's a horrible cop or just a horrible person.

[RPM 26565]

1 minute ago, Cousin Strawberry said:

What comment did she make about MLK?

 

MLC?

[4th and 5 4997]

I'm sure it is her social media stuff a few pages back

[4th&Five 41905]

 

[Brisketexan 106640]

Just now, Red Six said:

I think the protocol is to make sure they are unarmed, make sure they are incapacitated, then, if both of those are the case, begin life-saving measures.

I can't tell if she's a horrible cop or just a horrible person.

Yeah, this post was made for the "why not both" pic.

[MissingInAction 25485]

I would like to be expert witness for the prosecution in that I have been black out shit housed fucked in the skull 100s of times and never once walked into the wrong apartment.

[Cousin Strawberry 1273]

6 minutes ago, RPM said:

MLC?

wow.  But you are probably right.

[TwiceHorn 31994]

As dramatic as her testimony was, and likely damaging, don't think for a minute that the defense team didn't anticipate or was unready for that outcome.

I am relatively certain that they decided her testimony could be a shitshow and they needed to get it done hours before the jury began deliberations.  The jury is going to now listen to several hours of phd testimony about how irrational people are under stress.

Getting the testimony we just heard as the last evidence the jury heard would have been an epic disaster.

[4th and 5 4997]

primacy or recency

we know where you stand

[4th and 5 4997]

maybe they could have made a shit sandwich out of Ranger Armstrong, her, then Dr. Green?

[Huckleberry 34407]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As dramatic as her testimony was, and likely damaging, don't think for a minute that the defense team didn't anticipate or was unready for that outcome.

I am relatively certain that they decided her testimony could be a shitshow and they needed to get it done hours before the jury began deliberations.  The jury is going to now listen to several hours of phd testimony about how irrational people are under stress.

Getting the testimony we just heard as the last evidence the jury heard would have been an epic disaster.

But her testimony seems to undermine that defense to some extent. Now the jury has learned that she created the stressful situation. When we thought she crossed the threshold and entered the apartment before realizing Jean was there then arguments regarding stress response would have likely been very persuasive. 

However, now we know from her testimony that she heard noise in the apartment before she went to open the door. Not only did she have the opportunity to avoid the stressful situation and call for backup before engaging, but she also has extensive professional training that taught her to do just that. But instead of doing so she chose to move into a confrontation and thereby provoked a tragedy. 

Will the jury let her get away with using the stress she caused as a defense? You can't go up to someone, punch them in the face, shoot them when they prepare to hit you back, then use self-defense as a valid argument. So can you be the willing and purposeful cause of a stressful confrontation in someone else's home and then use that stress as a defense? To me the fact that she had not yet begun opening the door before she knew something was wrong is a very damaging fact. 

Essentially now we know that the confrontation with a supposed intruder wasn't thrust upon her suddenly where it caught her unprepared. She knew before it happened that she was entering a confrontation with an "intruder" and was prepared for it.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Huckleberry

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

Not only that, but she half-assed her Rambo experience.   Had she put her shit down before storming the door, she would have been able to turn on the light to better identify her target.  In doing so, she likely would have realized she was in the wrong apartment and the only death would have been that of her ego having committed such an egregious error.  But no, she barged in, carrying 40+ lbs of gear in her left arm for no reason and shot an *unarmed* man in the dark in an environment she failed to identify.

Edited September 27, 2019 by hopkinsnhorns
*edit*

[hayden_horn 11401]

6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

But her testimony seems to undermine that defense to some extent. Now the jury has learned that she created the stressful situation. When we thought she crossed the threshold and entered the apartment before realizing Jean was there then arguments regarding stress response would have likely been very persuasive. 

However, now we know from her testimony that she heard noise in the apartment before she went to open the door. Not only did she have the opportunity to avoid the stressful situation and call for backup before engaging, but she also has extensive professional training that taught her to do just that. But instead of doing so she chose to move into a confrontation and thereby provoked a tragedy. 

Will the jury let her get away with using the stress she caused as a defense? You can't go up to someone, punch them in the face, shoot them when they prepare to hit you back, then use self-defense as a valid argument. So can you be the willing and purposeful cause of a stressful confrontation in someone else's home and then use that stress as a defense? To me the fact that she had not yet begun opening the door before she knew something was wrong is a very damaging fact. 

Essentially now we know that the confrontation with a supposed intruder wasn't thrust upon her suddenly where it caught her unprepared. She knew before it happened that she was entering a confrontation with an "intruder" and was prepared for it.

yeah, i don't understand why that was part of the defense. it's catastrophic for her defense.

[kevwun 16288]

If I had been on the jury, the only defense I would have found palatable was that she stumbled in to the apartment and Jean jumped up and she shot him in a panic.  No cop is trained to go in to a room by themselves that they know to be occupied by an unknown person.  It was not an emergency situation.  She unnecessarily escalated it and killed an innocent man.  She deserves jail time.

[Red Six 131]

8 minutes ago, hopkinsnhorns said:

Not only that, but she half-assed her Rambo experience.   Had she put her shit down before storming the door, she would have been able to turn on the light to better identify her target.  In doing so, she likely would have realized she was in the wrong apartment and the only death would have been that of her ego having committed such an egregious error.  But no, she barged in, carrying 40+ lbs of gear in her left arm for no reason and shot an *unarmed* man in the dark in an environment she failed to identify.

Even if she turned the light on, she would have just thought he was one of those local homeless and/or pot-smoking hippies who were around her place, whom she described in her text to a fellow cop.

And that was actually a good slip-in by the prosecution. It simultaneously shows that she didn't have an extreme fear of neighborhood, as well as dismissive contempt for other human beings.

[Brisketexan 106640]

27 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As dramatic as her testimony was, and likely damaging, don't think for a minute that the defense team didn't anticipate or was unready for that outcome.

I am relatively certain that they decided her testimony could be a shitshow and they needed to get it done hours before the jury began deliberations.  The jury is going to now listen to several hours of phd testimony about how irrational people are under stress.

Getting the testimony we just heard as the last evidence the jury heard would have been an epic disaster.

Understood.  But....

18 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

But her testimony seems to undermine that defense to some extent. Now the jury has learned that she created the stressful situation. When we thought she crossed the threshold and entered the apartment before realizing Jean was there then arguments regarding stress response would have likely been very persuasive. 

However, now we know from her testimony that she heard noise in the apartment before she went to open the door. Not only did she have the opportunity to avoid the stressful situation and call for backup before engaging, but she also has extensive professional training that taught her to do just that. But instead of doing so she chose to move into a confrontation and thereby provoked a tragedy. 

Will the jury let her get away with using the stress she caused as a defense? You can't go up to someone, punch them in the face, shoot them when they prepare to hit you back, then use self-defense as a valid argument. So can you be the willing and purposeful cause of a stressful confrontation in someone else's home and then use that stress as a defense? To me the fact that she had not yet begun opening the door before she knew something was wrong is a very damaging fact. 

Essentially now we know that the confrontation with a supposed intruder wasn't thrust upon her suddenly where it caught her unprepared. She knew before it happened that she was entering a confrontation with an "intruder" and was prepared for it.

 

11 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yeah, i don't understand why that was part of the defense. it's catastrophic for her defense.

These.

I have said from the beginning that she walks.  But this set of facts -- her decision to enter, knowing that there was a possible threat, and how she entered -- that is making me waver in my prediction.  This is the first time I've really thought that there's a chance of a guilty verdict.

I mean, it still probably won't be.  But I can see it happening.

[Surly Bevo 25660]

So question. Let’s say that was her house/apartment and this fact pattern came out. IE she recognized somebody was in her apartment BEFORE she walked in.

Would she have been legally justified in what she did in that circumstance?

Personally I would say fuck no but I know that gets squishy so just curious where the line is.

[TXSooner518 2455]

26 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

maybe they could have made a shit sandwich out of Ranger Armstrong, her, then Dr. Green?

This would have seemed to be the best strategy if the defense was aware of the cataclysm that the cross of Guyger was going to be.

[C-Man 27690]

25 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Will the jury let her get away with using the stress she caused as a defense? You can't go up to someone, punch them in the face, shoot them when they prepare to hit you back, then use self-defense as a valid argument.

Assuming no other witnesses/video, if the other person is dead and therefore can't refute your testimony you can do whatever the fuck you want!

[HRSchenker 2331]

How many mistakes does someone need to make before their mistake of fact becomes unreasonable? Imagine a surgeon who goes to the wrong floor, enters the wrong surgical room, garbs up with the wrong nurses, and successfully cuts off the patient's leg. Who in the world would suggest that this person acted reasonable?

[TXSooner518 2455]

Just now, Surly Bevo said:

So question. Let’s say that was her house/apartment and this fact pattern came out. IE she recognized somebody was in her apartment BEFORE she walked in.

Would she have been legally justified in what she did in that circumstance?

Personally I would say fuck no but I know that gets squishy so just curious where the line is.

I was talking to a couple of other coworkers (attorneys) and we were discussing that. We think, all told, if this was actually her apartment and Botham had been the maintenance man that she killed, I would still say she should be convicted.

The fact that she knew maintenance was occurring this week, and also her testimony about the finickiness of the locks would IMO defeat the reasonableness of her presumption that the person entered her habitation unlawfully and with force. So she would need something other than "he was in my habitation" to be justified to use deadly force.

And her actions after the gunshots are absolutely indefensible. Failing to use the tools at your disposal, failing to provide CPR, all the while making sure to text your side dick and try to get yourself help, just indefensible, and absolutely could contribute to the death and should be held against her.

 

On a side note, I would like to see the prosecutor refer to her statement that Botham yelled HEY HEY. Is it common experience for police that people committing crimes in building occupied by hundreds of people scream out while committing crimes or nah?

[Red Six 131]

21 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Will the jury let her get away with using the stress she caused as a defense? You can't go up to someone, punch them in the face, shoot them when they prepare to hit you back, then use self-defense as a valid argument. So can you be the willing and purposeful cause of a stressful confrontation in someone else's home and then use that stress as a defense? To me the fact that she had not yet begun opening the door before she knew something was wrong is a very damaging fact. 

It's called provoking the difficulty.

The state can get an instruction negating self-defense if the defendant, basically, brought the situation upon herself.

They did a good job laying the foundation for that in cross-examination.

Overall, they did a good job. After watching it and looking back through Tweets and posts here, they were masterful in both plan and execution. Her wilting like she did didn't help, but they created their points and hit her hard.

I'm in the primacy camp here. Defense has lost control of the narrative and is tanked on credibility. The jury is not going to care what the experts say.

[TwiceHorn 31994]

33 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

primacy or recency

we know where you stand

I don't know actually, but I think we know where the defense stands.

And, since it looks like we got the weekend, they're gonna have 3-4 days for that drama to wear off.

[TXSooner518 2455]

1 minute ago, HRSchenker said:

How many mistakes does someone need to make before their mistake of fact becomes unreasonable? Imagine a surgeon who goes to the wrong floor, enters the wrong surgical room, garbs up with the wrong nurses, and successfully cuts off the patient's leg. Who in the world would suggest that this person acted reasonable?

Did you miss that she texted she was "sweepy"????

[gsoda3 3358]

are they breaking for lunch or done for the day?

[TwiceHorn 31994]

31 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

But her testimony seems to undermine that defense to some extent. Now the jury has learned that she created the stressful situation. When we thought she crossed the threshold and entered the apartment before realizing Jean was there then arguments regarding stress response would have likely been very persuasive. 

However, now we know from her testimony that she heard noise in the apartment before she went to open the door. Not only did she have the opportunity to avoid the stressful situation and call for backup before engaging, but she also has extensive professional training that taught her to do just that. But instead of doing so she chose to move into a confrontation and thereby provoked a tragedy. 

Will the jury let her get away with using the stress she caused as a defense? You can't go up to someone, punch them in the face, shoot them when they prepare to hit you back, then use self-defense as a valid argument. So can you be the willing and purposeful cause of a stressful confrontation in someone else's home and then use that stress as a defense? To me the fact that she had not yet begun opening the door before she knew something was wrong is a very damaging fact. 

Essentially now we know that the confrontation with a supposed intruder wasn't thrust upon her suddenly where it caught her unprepared. She knew before it happened that she was entering a confrontation with an "intruder" and was prepared for it.

I don't know whether "I heard a noise before I entered" was a necessary piece of testimony or not.  That is, did they feel they needed to explain why she shot from the threshold.

It's not good, from my perspective, anyway.

[TXSooner518 2455]

1 minute ago, Red Six said:

The jury is not going to care what the experts say.

Yeah, expecting them to swallow, "hey even though we put 3500 hours of training into this person, when they came upon a situation they were trained for, they are incapable of making even basic rational decisions" is a hell of a lot.

Was she still having tunnel vision when she was texting instead of applying life-saving measures? If that's the case, fuck, why even give them a first aid kit, they can't possibly be expected to use it if an actual stressful situation arises? 

[Gene Parmesan 4062]

1 minute ago, TXSooner518 said:

I was talking to a couple of other coworkers (attorneys) and we were discussing that. We think, all told, if this was actually her apartment and Botham had been the maintenance man that she killed, I would still say she should be convicted.

The fact that she knew maintenance was occurring this week, and also her testimony about the finickiness of the locks would IMO defeat the reasonableness of her presumption that the person entered her habitation unlawfully and with force. So she would need something other than "he was in my habitation" to be justified to use deadly force.

And her actions after the gunshots are absolutely indefensible. Failing to use the tools at your disposal, failing to provide CPR, all the while making sure to text your side dick and try to get yourself help, just indefensible, and absolutely could contribute to the death and should be held against her.

 

On a side note, I would like to see the prosecutor refer to her statement that Botham yelled HEY HEY. Is it common experience for police that people committing crimes in building occupied by hundreds of people scream out while committing crimes or nah?

But had BJ been an actual intruder and not maintenance everything else the same there is no way she's even charged. 

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't know actually, but I think we know where the defense stands.

And, since it looks like we got the weekend, they're gonna have 3-4 days for that drama to wear off.

They'll be in session tomorrow, for at least part of the day.  Judge gave them notice of that yesterday.  I don't think the judge is going to let the trial lose momentum.  She's doing an admirable job of calling balls and strikes to me, the uninformed citizen.