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

[77horn 216]

Quote

The jury is going to now listen to several hours of phd testimony about how irrational people are under stress.

They like will, but damn-it being under stress is part of the job.  Not everything they see is "a call" in which they have time to mentally prepare en route.  Sometime they see shit and have to immediately decide what to do.  She was trained to do X but she did Y and killed someone.

The jury will have to decide whether she intentionally did the wrong thing, or was her training so bad that she was never going to succeed as a cop.  Its possible she thought she was on 3rd floor and not the 4th, but that stop (when the guy got ahead of her in the garage) makes me thing it could have been intentional, but I can't say that beyond a reasonable doubt.  But I have little doubt that once she "heard the sound of someone moving", which was before she opened the door, her actions were intentional, wanting to neutralize the "threat".

Finally, she was standing in the doorway will a well lit hallway behind her. She bursts in and says, "show me your hands"  but Jean in his dark apartment, likely only sees a silhouette.  She didn't say "Police, show me your hands"

 

[TwiceHorn 31996]

17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Understood.  But....

 

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.

Realize that here I am not commenting on the substance of her testimony, but rather the timing.

And, as shitty as it was, I can see the justification for opening the defense case in chief with it, rather than closing it.

You can argue that they've lost control of it and I won't disagree, but better now or at the close of the case?

Edited September 27, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

3 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

are they breaking for lunch or done for the day?

Lunch, scheduled to be back at 1:10PM.

[pops 7121]

I was willing to give this bitch the benefit of the doubt more than most, but with that fact pattern, she is done and should be done. 

I mean I guess good job for telling the truth, but I have no idea how anyone on the defense thought it was a good idea for that to be her story. 

[Brisketexan 106653]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Realize that here I am not commenting on the substance of her testimony, but rather the timing.

And, as shitty as it was, I can see the justification for opening the defense case in chief with it, rather than closing it.

Oh, I agree with that.  You've got to make a judgement call as to when to put her on.  I tend to agree that they made the right one -- I'm on your side of the primacy/recency thinking.  But man, it's still a close call.

[TwiceHorn 31996]

4 minutes ago, 77horn said:

They like will, but damn-it being under stress is part of the job.  Not everything they see is "a call" in which they have time to mentally prepare en route.  Sometime they see shit and have to immediately decide what to do.  She was trained to do X but she did Y and killed someone.

The jury will have to decide whether she intentionally did the wrong thing, or was her training so bad that she was never going to succeed as a cop.  Its possible she thought she was on 3rd floor and not the 4th, but that stop (when the guy got ahead of her in the garage) makes me thing it could have been intentional, but I can't say that beyond a reasonable doubt.  But I have little doubt that once she "heard the sound of someone moving", which was before she opened the door, her actions were intentional, wanting to neutralize the "threat".

Finally, she was standing in the doorway will a well lit hallway behind her. She bursts in and says, "show me your hands"  but Jean in his dark apartment, likely only sees a silhouette.  She didn't say "Police, show me your hands"

 

I'm not saying the testimony will or should change anyone's mind, but it's going to be low-drama, possibly boring, and is going to let the jury forget about this morning to the extent that is possible.

[TwiceHorn 31996]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, I agree with that.  You've got to make a judgement call as to when to put her on.  I tend to agree that they made the right one -- I'm on your side of the primacy/recency thinking.  But man, it's still a close call.

And again, I'm not sure I have a side, I can just see the reasoning.  If I were better at this, I wouldn't be sitting here grinding patents.

[TXSooner518 2455]

5 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

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

True. There would be no testimony or evidence to counter her presumption. The email about maintenance would never come up. 

[hookem17 485]

 

Ranger Armstrong is just paying it forward. 

[TXSooner518 2455]

That is fucking absolutely outrageous if true. I'm sure he doesn't think she should be charged with a crime. How the fuck is driving 84 in a 45 in a mental state that by definition is compromised NOT at MINIMUM criminally negligent?

Edited September 27, 2019 by TXSooner518

[77horn 216]

Twice, I understand that.  But I've been on 4 juries (2 criminal).  I've even had them with the defendant testifying.  Never seen anything like this cross.  Yeah after some boring experts and maybe a weekend, it wont be as visceral, but that left a mark.

[Gene Parmesan 4062]

Is that real?  I have no idea on the ability to use that in this case to discredit him, but the optics are certainly horrible.

[Huckleberry 34407]

5 minutes ago, hookem17 said:

 

Ranger Armstrong is just paying it forward. 

 

2 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

That is fucking absolutely outrageous if true. I'm sure he doesn't think she should be charged with a crime. How the fuck is driving 84 in a 45 in a mental state that by definition is compromised NOT at MINIMUM criminally negligent?

Yeah, what's the source on that?

And lawdogs, can that kind of thing be introduced toward the credibility of an expert witness or no?

[4th and 5 4997]

any one got this, I refuse to subscribe to that rag

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190310/lawsuit-texas-rangers-misconduct-deliberately-ignored

 

[kevwun 16314]

The guy he supposedly killed in the accident was a real person.

https://www.alicetx.com/obituaries/20170209/jd-kristopher-trevino

Edited September 27, 2019 by kevwun

[4th and 5 4997]

7 minutes ago, hookem17 said:

 

Ranger Armstrong is just paying it forward. 

Now that would be a good example of of the applicable culpable mental states for manslaughter (recklessness) or criminally negligent homicide (criminal negligence)

[hookem17 485]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

 

Yeah, what's the source on that?

And lawdogs, can that kind of thing be introduced toward the credibility of an expert witness or no?

Here’s a more credible source on the Armstrong accident. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.expressnews.com/news/politics/texas_legislature/amp/Lawsuit-spotlights-misconduct-of-Texas-Rangers-13671011.php

[TwiceHorn 31996]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

 

Yeah, what's the source on that?

And lawdogs, can that kind of thing be introduced toward the credibility of an expert witness or no?

I don't think he's going to be qualified as an expert.  It was hit on in the state's case in chief.

He may be recalled I think as a fact witness for some of the site videos and photos and that kind of material.

Because he probably won't be offering testimony about anything but photos, videos, and observations, I don't think that comes in.

[Brisketexan 106653]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't think he's going to be qualified as an expert.  It was hit on in the state's case in chief.

He may be recalled I think as a fact witness for some of the site videos and photos and that kind of material.

Because he probably won't be offering testimony about anything but photos, videos, and observations, I don't think that comes in.

Agree.  But the defense better keep him on a tight damned leash, because if he wanders afield into opinion about reasonableness and following procedure and whatnot....

[TXSooner518 2455]

To me that isn't as much Ranger misconduct as complete criminal justice system fuckery. Would love to be provided a single example of someone going 40 over the limit and causing a death and NOT prosecuted. People need to do their fucking jobs or be replaced by people who will, period. Every LEO and prosecutor involved in that case should be ashamed and in the unemployment line.

[4th and 5 4997]

I think a well trained and experienced law enforcement officer can qualify as an expert on acute stress response, at least some aspects of it. 

[TXSooner518 2455]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Agree.  But the defense better keep him on a tight damned leash, because if he wanders afield into opinion about reasonableness and following procedure and whatnot....

Yeah, if that opinion testimony about whether or not she should have been charged with a crime had come in, I would have pushing REAL hard to bring this up. Sure, you think going 40 over while driving outside of safety regulation timeframes and killing an innocent person isn't criminal either, as long as a cop did the killing, right Ranger?

[bschoolprof 6339]

7 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

any one got this, I refuse to subscribe to that rag

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190310/lawsuit-texas-rangers-misconduct-deliberately-ignored

 

A former Texas Department of Public Safety investigator is suing the agency, accusing it of turning a blind eye to misconduct by the Texas Rangers — the state’s elite police force, which the department oversees.

Darren Lubbe’s federal lawsuit spotlights several cases of wrongdoing involving Texas Rangers who broke rules or violated ethical standards, the San Antonio Express-News reported. The lawsuit alleges that Rangers often avoided punishment or were quietly reprimanded.

Among the incidents cited were one ranger’s involvement in a fatal car crash and allegations that another made inappropriate comments to the Pflugerville Police Department’s female employees.

Lubbe sued the department over allegations that he faced unfair discipline after his superiors questioned his religious devotion in 2014. Lubbe claims he received his first negative performance review and was “harassed into an early retirement” after he refused to attend an East Texas church with his boss, according to the lawsuit.

The retaliation occurred as the department overlooked rule-breaking members of the Texas Rangers, the lawsuit claims. Lubbe retired in 2017.

One case cited in the lawsuit involves Ranger David Armstrong, who was driving double the speed limit in his state-issued vehicle when he hit a pickup that had run a stop sign, according to a report on the 2017 crash. The truck’s passenger was ejected from the vehicle and later died of injuries.

Investigators found that the truck’s driver was drunk but also noted that the crash wouldn’t have happened if Armstrong had been driving the speed limit. Armstrong wasn’t suspended or demoted, and he didn’t face criminal charges, according to department records.

 

 

The lawsuit claims the incident demonstrates a double standard and evidence of a cover-up by top public safety officials.

Armstrong’s attorney, Eric Perkins, denied that the Texas Rangers did anything to cover up the accident. The incident was thoroughly investigated, Perkins said.

 

The lawsuit also cited Brent Davis, who was quietly disciplined after beginning a sexual relationship with the widow of a murder victim, whose death he was investigating in 2016. Davis was found to have violated the agency’s ethics rules, according to an internal review. A top official said his conduct would support termination, but he was instead demoted.

Davis didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The department said it plans to dispute the lawsuit’s claims in court. The state hasn’t filed a response to Lubbe’s lawsuit yet.

[TXSooner518 2455]

I mean, the "drunk" and "ran a stop sign" part should be included in the original narrative, but nonetheless the point remains.

[Huckleberry 34407]

Looks like the guy he killed was driving drunk. Obviously he still should have suffered legal consequences for being involved in an accident going 84 in a 40, but I can't imagine that grand juries are going to indict a trooper for getting in an accident with a drunk driver very often. They probably should have in his case but it's obviously not surprising that they didn't.

[hullabelew 3730]

WTF just happened.  Judge came back in..pow wowed with the lawyers and left. 

 

[TXSooner518 2455]

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Looks like the guy he killed was driving drunk. Obviously he still should have suffered legal consequences for being involved in an accident going 84 in a 40, but I can't imagine that grand juries are going to indict a trooper for getting in an accident with a drunk driver very often. They probably should have in his case but it's obviously not surprising that they didn't.

Doesn't look like it was presented to the grand jury.

[Huckleberry 34407]

The SAEN article says

Armstrong wasn’t suspended or demoted as a result of the February 2017 wreck, DPS records show. He didn’t face criminal charges, after a grand jury opted not to indict him, according to officials.

No idea if that's misleading or not.

[TXSooner518 2455]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

The SAEN article says

 

 

No idea if that's misleading or not.

Ah, I was going off of the other article that didn't mention it, just said "didn't face criminal charges." If they presented it to the GJ, and they failed to indict, so be it. Should still be prosecuted for reckless driving IMO at minimum. 

[Brisketexan 106653]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

The SAEN article says

 

 

No idea if that's misleading or not.

Yeah.  The prosecutor presents the evidence to the grand jury.  If the prosecutor doesn't want them to indict, he'll easily present it in a way that they won't.

Oh, and many years ago, I had dealings with the inner workings and politics of the DPS.  The way shit goes down there would make most folks blanche and cross themselves.

[CHEF DIESEL 126]

Well, well, well. Now we know why Ranger Armstrong holds that strong opinion about "oops I just killed someone".

[Gooby 642]

Where'd Amber go?  Why the fuck are we rehashing how hard it must be to find your apartment in this complex?

[hookem17 485]

Black finger nail polish from the female defense attorney seems...aggressive. 

[HOOKEM4 5152]

The defense is going to call up a bunch of bullshit we already know and go over it ad nauseum just to distance her testimony from the deliberations. Good call whichever lawyer said that was the case.  

[Skipper 6406]

1 minute ago, Gooby said:

Where'd Amber go?  Why the fuck are we rehashing how hard it must be to find your apartment in this complex?

No shit.  Let's stipulate it's easy to get confused in the parking lot and move on.

[TXSooner518 2455]

These people in this fucking complex.  I just go up to random apartments and stick my key in random locks to see if it is mine rather than taking ONE SECOND to look at number plates on the elevator, or apartment number signs, or numbers on the reserved parking spaces. Jesus fuck we are a society of imbeciles.

[HOOKEM4 5152]

That poor man. I am uhhh 5'-6"

That suuucks bro. Sorry about that.

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

The name's Lipscum.  Marc Lipscum.

[Gooby 642]

3 minutes ago, HOOKEM4 said:

The defense is going to call up a bunch of bullshit we already know and go over it ad nauseum just to distance her testimony from the deliberations. Good call whichever lawyer said that was the case.  

Well, yeah, but the DA can't be done with her, can they?

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

1 minute ago, Gooby said:

Well, yeah, but the DA can't be done with her, can they?

Yeah, they are.  They've already presented their case.  The only thing they can do now is question the defenses witnesses on cross examination.  But you can be sure she will be properly lambasted during their closing statements.

[HOOKEM4 5152]

I dont know the process. Can the DA just recall her later after "resting" or is she gone for the DA now?

[hookem17 485]

Just now, HOOKEM4 said:

I dont know the process. Can the DA just recall her later after "resting" or is she gone for the DA now?

No. She’s done. 

[HOOKEM4 5152]

Thats what I thought. Could the DA have called her while presenting his case?

[TXSooner518 2455]

Just now, hookem17 said:

No. She’s done. 

Couldn't the state call her during rebuttal if she was needed to rebut subsequent testimony offered by the defense?

[Gooby 642]

This dude has walked in to a bunch of wrong apartments.  Sounds like a bunch of people are lucky to be alive.

[TXSooner518 2455]

Just now, HOOKEM4 said:

Thats what I thought. Could the DA have called her while presenting his case?

No, 5th Amendment out front shoulda told you.  

[TXSooner518 2455]

Just now, Gooby said:

This dude has walked in to a bunch of wrong apartments.  Sounds like a bunch of people are lucky to be alive.

Again after you fucking make this mistake once, how the fuck do you not become aware and give the slightest effort???? Just inconceivable to me.

[George 493]

The feed dies I was following. Anyone else have link?

nm found one

Edited September 27, 2019 by George

[Gooby 642]

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Watch-Live-Amber-Guyger-Murder-Trial-Day-5-561148641.html

[Cousin Strawberry 1273]

3 minutes ago, Gooby said:

This dude has walked in to a bunch of wrong apartments.  Sounds like a bunch of people are lucky to be alive.

He must have nerves of steel not to have shot those people who were in "his" apartment.