The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Protest in a nutshell for those who don’t get it.  And we don’t at this point know the races of these two people.  The problem is cops are not held accountable when they murder.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/officer-fatally-shoots-man-entering-wrong-apartment-believing/story?id=57667361

Anybody else enters someone’s home and shoots them and says, “oops, wrong apartment “ gets arrested for murder.

Dallas police seek manslaughter warrant against officer who killed neighbor

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dallas-officer-enters-apartment-she-mistakes-her-own-fatally-shoots-n907411 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dallas-officer-enters-apartment-she-mistakes-her-own-fatally-shoots-n907411)

You were saying?  The phony outrage is getting old man.

Should have been arrested at the scene.  Should be charged with murder, not manslaughter.  Anything else is treating her differently than anyone else.

Sure buddy, whatever you say  ::)

Isn't murder premeditated? Just maybe she made an actual mistake. She should be punished, but murder? Nah...

No.  1st degree is premeditated. 2nd degree is intend to kill or reckless disregard for human life.  Manslaughter is negligent homocide. 

This sounds like an honest mistake.  That would make it manslaughter

She intended to kill. And I am not buying honest mistake, people don’t accidentally walk into the wrong apartment and not notice the furniture is wrong and start shooting.

Oh she definitely meant to kill that guy.  That’s no mistake

But she went into the wrong apartment and thought it was hers and she was being burglarized.  That was the mistake.  If she wasn't a cop, would this be a big deal?

Complete BS.

You walk into the wrong place and your response is that someone has "burglarized your home" by replacing all of your furniture, pictures, etc. with different ones?

This does not pass the smell test.

Okay, let’s flip it.  Jean enters the police officers apartment, kills her and claims that he thought it was his apartment.

Would he be allowed to leave the scene pending a later warrant for manslaughter or would he been immediately arrested on home invasion and murder?

Would the name of the shooter be withheld to protect the accused privacy?

Would the right be claiming this is an unfortunate mistake or be demanding a wall be built between the US and St. Lucia?

Would the police department say they have more questions than answers or would they call this a case of an immigrant murdering a cop in her own home?

The problem goes well beyond what she did to how she is being treated in relationship to how anyone else would be treated.

So, what some of you are claiming is that this person purposefully just walked into a strangers dwelling and murdered him out of the blue? What's the motive? Unless there's some info we don't know about or some history between the two. Then I'm not buying that scenario.

I'm confused by both parties. Who walks into the wrong apartment? Who leaves an apartment door unlocked? I lived in one for a couple years and I just can't fathom doing either.

In my opinion, exterior apartments, it would be harder to walk into the wrong unit. Apartments with interior corridors would be easier to mistake.

 

Interior would be easier to confuse but shouldn't there be a unit number posted? From what I heard this guy also had an identifiable welcome mat also.

I dont know.  Maybe she went over to his apartment because he was playing his sterio too loud and things escalated.  Maybe the were lovers and she saw another women leaving his apartment.   Maybe it was as she claimed.  But the police have a duty to investigate rather than automatically assume she was telling the truth.   But they let her go back to her apartment and potentially destroy evidence rather than arrest.

Ok, let's get some facts or at least this is what has been reported in Dallas.

1) She didn't walk into the wrong apartment, she actually attempted to enter the apartment using her key but it didn't work (obviously) and the man opened the door and she shot him. Not saying that's the right response but she never saw the inside of the apartment to know it was not hers prior to shooting him.
2) She was not arrested on the scene because from my understanding the Dallas Police cannot arrest one of their own without a warrant. They actually had someone from the Texas Rangers make the arrest and it was the Texas Rangers that asked the Dallas Police to hold off on the warrant and the arrest until they had a chance to investigate. So while it may have seemed strange it was actually done to prevent any "special treatment" by the Dallas Police Department. This was not your average shooting so obviously it was handled somewhat differently but there was no ulterior motives here, they were just trying to follow proper procedures.

My take on this is that if this was an ordinary citizen (non-trained police officer), then I would tend to classify it as manslaughter.  However, as a trained police officer did this I would tend to classify this as 2nd degree murder.

It's kind of like a professional boxer getting in a fight and killing someone, versus an untrained fighter killing someone by punching them.  The professional is likely to get charged with murder, while the untrained person would likely be charged with manslaughter.

So she thought someone changed her lock and got her a welcome mat when they broke in.

Update, from a news story I just read (that came out 30 min. ago) - Per the Accused, she parked her vehicle on a level higher in the parking ramp than she normally does.  She wasn't even on the right floor of her apartment.  She didn't notice the victim's red doormat.  She put her key in the lock, but the door was already unlocked and she entered a dark apartment.  She saw the victim and started shooting.  She then turned on the light and realized she was in the wrong apartment.  As I said in a previous post, for an untrained individual this would be manslaughter, but for a trained professional it should be murder.  Cops shouldn't be shooting first and asking questions later.

Well, if you go into (what you think) is your apartment and see someone standing there (in the dark). How do you know if that person has a weapon and about to use it on you. Trained or untrained, there is no way to know. If her story is legit, then this is a tragic accident.

I can't agree with that. I don't think it matters if it's a cop or not, the legal system should be applied equally in my opinion. Either it's murder for both or manslaughter for both. Neither of them should be shooting first in my opinion, but the devil is in the details as they say. There may have been other mitigating factors here. Let the legal system sort it out.

If I understand correctly, it just so happens that the guy she killed was in the apartment directly above hers.  But I'm sure she had no outstanding beef with the tenant above her, as that would be exceedingly unusual.  Especially at night.

I don't know how locks work in that state, but over here in Cali, when you put the wrong key in a lock, the key itself won't turn even if the door is unlocked.  But this law enforcement officer probably doesn't have a deadbolt, or if she does, she doesn't use it when she leaves her home.  Cops are known for their casual disregard for personal security.

Hey guys, want to hear something that is totally unexpected?

Somehow this police officer seems to have been taking pictures with people making white supremacist hand signals (https://twitter.com/BarrettBrown_/status/1038934880586031104)!  Shocking, I know.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmsJaDmUYAAvKDV.jpg)

I anticipate that some here may try to downplay the significance of the hand signals being displayed.  If so, I encourage you to explain your point in detail and get your position on the record now before additional information comes out on this assuredly wonderful gentleman she is taking pictures with.

BTW, the "All Lives Matter" t-shirt is just... *chef's kiss*

on a tangent, it strikes me as appropriate that the white supremacist secret signal is american sign language for asshole.

Don't know too much about this case so my statements'll be limited:

1. They indicted her for manslaughter, right? So, the state's more or less already admitting to the fact that the killing was unintentional, though still a killing.

2. What kind of manslaughter though? There're different degrees, and it's different for every state. There may be a degree of intentionality in some forms of manslaughter, though provocation would then still probably exist.

3. Looks a bit suspicious, what with the neighbor thing. Suspicious is just that though, suspicious - not proof beyond a RD. (Don't know what, if any evidence exists to show beef or bad relations between the two of them though.) That's why we have a court system, and moreover, remember Richard Jewell.

4. Feel terrible for the deceased. I hope this is honestly, truly a mistake. That doesn't make it any easier for people, of course, but, at least a mistake is just that, a mistake.

OK Symbol 👌

"The "OK" Symbol is a hand gesture[7] typically used to signal that "all is well." The symbol has been frequently associated with supporters of the 45th President of the United States Donald Trump, with some speculating it is used by members of the alt-right to mimic a Smug Frog depiction of Pepe the Frog. Additionally, the symbol has been accused of being a symbol for "white power" following a 4chan hoax operation to trick news media outlets into reporting that it is a symbol of white supremacy."

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ok-symbol-%F0%9F%91%8C (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ok-symbol-%F0%9F%91%8C)

Looks like you fell for it.  Don't believe everything Vox and HuffPo puts out.

I mean...c'mon.  This isn't a mistake.  You don't have someone open the door to their own house and kill them thinking it's your house.  That is total bullshit on every level.  Your first instinct isn't to kill someone who answers the door. 

This is bullshit all over.  I don't know her motivations, but I'm sure they'll come out.  She meant to kill that guy...c'mon.

it's a "neighbor" .. from what i read it wasn't the apartment next door, it was the apartment in the same location as her apartment just one floor lower.

I can see it being a mistake.  I've lived in apartment complexes that were identical looking, down to the furniture.  Hell, I've walked in the wrong apartment before.  I can also see it being intentional.  We won't know until all the facts come out.

It's not impossible that she may have tried to open the wrong door.  But it's impossible that once he opened the door and it was him and his house, that she shot him as a first instinct.

She killed this man on purpose.  ...not sure why, but she did.  Maybe he made too much noise and they have a past or something.

I'm aware of the alt-right plan to "fool" the media into thinking the OK sign is a white supremacist hand signal.  Unfortunately, that plan was undermined when the alt-right was also marching with swastika flags shouting, "Jews will not replace us!" If you're trying to trick people into thinking you're a racist while you're also shouting racist slogans, you're just a racist.

I mean, you're trying to insist it's not really a white supremacist signal... as the guy is making ANOTHER white supremacist signal with his other hand! Come on, man.

In other words, it was the tenant directly above her, which is arguably one of the most contentious relationships "neighbors" have.

I'm trying to insist that your projecting...there is not such thing as an OK sign being a white supremacist signal, it's made up propaganda.

Again, the guy is also making another (different) white supremacist signal WITH HIS OTHER HAND.  So I'm not sure what you are trying to defend.

Regardless of any original troll intent, the fact that the real white supremacists have adopted it makes it a racist signal, especially in the context of a guy making another racist signal at the same time. There isn't even plausible deniability on this one!  The guy is making it crystal clear that it's a racist signal by simultaneously making another one.

This is basically like trying to insist that the people flying swastika flags are just expressing their affinity for the ancient symbol for the sun, which predates Nazism by hundreds of years.  Why are the libs insisting everything is tied to racism?

So making 2 "OK" hand gestures at the same time somehow turns them into a white supremacist hand gesture. Is that kind of like how a double negative makes a positive? What kind of silly ass tin foil hat shit are you talking about? Are you high?

1) Trump makes okay sign while giving speaches...still does it
2) Trump supporters do it showing they support Trump
3) 4chan makes a Pepe meme where he does it and wears a MAGA hat
4) 4chan dupes the media that it is a hate sign
5) Stupid far left SJWs still say it's a hate sign as to not look stupid
6) Left media propaganda focuses on the minuscule number of white supremacist, try to justify it as a hate symbol again, as to not look like a bunch of fools
7) The rest of us scratch our heads and still think it's an "okay" sign because we haven't lost our damn minds.

If the guy isn't a racist he should at least be considered a douche bag. I have not done an ok signal since my age was in single digits and never did two at a time with one upside down. Give me a break guys. That was done as a signal so at least come up with some explanation.

Why should anyone give an explanation on something that is asinine from the beginning?  My explanation is it's made up propaganda.  You want to call him a douche, that's okay (not the symbol though, that's racist).

An explanation of why some douche bag is doing two OK hand gestures. Who the fuck cares? It has nothing to do with the topic unless you can read peoples minds.

I guess you think the lady behind Kavanaugh the other day was flashing "WHITE POWER" on national TV? Most racist people that I've encountered didn't need secret handshakes, hand gestures, or decoder rings. They just come out and say what they want to say regardless of what everyone else thinks.

And you lefties claim that conservatives are wack job conspiracy nuts. That's the pot calling the kettle black. Oh shit, I said black, I must be a racist, LMFAO.....

So the symbol was a hoax, I get that. Why is douchey doing it and does he understand the origin? The swastika wasn't a racist symbol originally either.

It absolutely has everything to do with the topic if the topic is him giving a signal.

I didn't really pay attention to the story of the woman behind Trump. I didn't buy into that story but this guy is clearly giving some sort of hand sign because that isn't a natural pose for anyone.

I don't know what's going on in that guy's head, neither do you, your jumping to a conclusion.  In fact, when was the picture taken?  If it's 2016, that's before all the okay=racism thing and he could be supporting trump.  When I was in school, we did mock 'Westside' or 'bloods' hand signs, of course not serious, it was done in jest.  Maybe he never grew out or that and thinks it's funny.

Its all speculation

My conclusion is it is clearly a hand signal done on purpose. I'm still trying to learn if he is a racist or simply a douche.

I could get behind that, whatever it is, it's on purpose.

Take it with a grain of salt but a witness is reporting they heard knocking with a woman yelling let me in just before the gun shots.

Let's be clear here: he is not making "two OK gestures," he is making two completely different hand signals.  His right hand (to the viewer's left) is a P, and his left hand is the OK signal.  If you are going to claim he is just making two OK signals and one of them is upside-down, you are being willfully delusional.

So I'm not sure why you guys are putting so much effort into defending the OK gesture; if he was just doing the OK then you might have a point.  The OK is a confirmation of what is going on in his other hand.

For example, if someone has their hand open and their arm out at an angle, you can argue that it's an awkward wave, i.e.:

(https://assets.forwardcdn.com/images/cropped/screen-shot-2016-07-21-at-50548-pm-1469135314.png)

Now, if you want to say that's not a Nazi salute, I agree.  It's just a picture with unfortunate timing. But if you take that same picture while staring into the camera and your other hand is making an OK?  Yeah, that's a Nazi salute.  Context matters.
 
The fact that the guy is giving both signals at the same time makes his intent crystal clear.

Not really. Maybe if SHE was doing it?

Pappy, posting a picture you took with someone prominently wearing a swastika is basically indistinguishable from wearing one yourself.  That's the point.

If he's doing the white power symbol or whatever, he's dyslexic...Power White?  I'm not sure why you are putting so much effort into demonizing this random person, in a picture taken at a random time, who happens to know the cop who's likely already going to jail for the rest of her life.  So does that mean Jameis Winston is for sure a rapist because he was in an Uber with a rapist?  Guilt by association!

If I were citing people who are definitely not rapists, I would probably pass on choosing Jameis Winston as my example.

And as stated above: taking smiling pictures with people endorsing white supremacy is endorsing white supremacy yourself.

I don't know the origin of that picture. Where did it come from? We know she posted it? Do we know she knows what the hand gesture he is making means? Seems the people on this forum can't really decide, how do we know she knows it means what you think it means?

Just to be clear I'm not exonerating her of anything. I'm also not accusing her of anything. You know, due process. Is that not something we do anymore?

Assuming of course that you are aware that's what you are doing. If after she saw the picture she demanded it be destroyed and rather it's posted on the internet without her knowledge that's something completely different. Otherwise every one of us could be accused of being racist since we post on a website that has a picture of a man making white supremacy gestures. Am I a racist for just posting on this website? I don't believe I am. If I shoot a black man THEN do I become a racist for posting on this website? Still don't think I am.

Fair enough, that's a convoluted example.


This is more what I was trying to get at, Pappy said it better than me.

I think we are missing some really crucial evidence here. According to the report she walked from her car to the apartment and tried to open the lock on the door. When she couldn't get it open she put down the things she was carrying. It was at this point the victim opened the door and startled her, she pulled her revolver, gave him some verbal commands which he did not comply with and shot him.

I'd like to know if those things she was carrying were found at the scene. Blood on them? Consistent with being on the floor when man was shot? Was the door of her apartment still locked? Any evidence that she had been in her own apartment on that night prior to or after the shooting like blood there? Does she have a known history with the man who was shot? I thought I read that she may have known him? Any other real evidence that her story is a fabrication? These are the questions I want to know. Whether or not there's a picture of her with her brother making gang symbols is pretty far down the list of things I want to know. I also understand there's some witnesses who said they heard voices, I don't find witness testimony to be that great in general. Could have been the person with the TV on too loud and not the off-duty cop or the victim or just mistaken what was said. Sometimes we are sure we heard something that we really didn't.

I'd also like to know what happened after she shot him? Did she try to help him? Perform CPR? Called 911 or the police? How long did that take? Did she have someone else do this while she tried to keep him alive? When exactly did he die? How many times did she shoot him? There's a lot of information that I don't know yet and haven't read anything about it yet.

I just read that she did not know the man and had only lived in the apartment complex a month. Doesn't seem like a long enough time to have had any kind of reason to confront him. Also sounds like she immediately called police when it happened but didn't give aid to the victim but the police that arrived did. He later died in the hospital.

No offense but I'd really hate to get stuck on a jury with many people in this forum! hahaha I feel like we'd do nothing but beat dead horses for weeks and only end up a mistrial.

So you would agree that if she posted these pictures or “liked them on Facebook”. Then it is very strong indicator she is racist.  But if she was unaware of the photos than it is not.  I am okay with that.  But given how easily the media found the photos, I am going to assume she was the poster or at the very least aware of them.  I am pretty good at being aware of what photos of me have my name tagged to them and *I* never had formal training in investigative skills.

A CBS news report published 3 hours ago said:

 According to an arrest warrant, Guyger told investigators that she went to what she thought was her third floor apartment. Instead, she went to Jean's fourth floor apartment directly above hers. Guyger says her door was "ajar" and saw a "large silhouette" inside.

 

After giving"verbal commands that were ignored," she fired her handgun twice, striking Jean once in the torso. It wasn't until Guyger "turned on the…lights" and "called 911" that she realized she was "at the wrong apartment.""We will make certain that justice is done in this case," said Dallas County District Attorney Faith Johnson.


Also in the news report, her statement was contradicted by the following:

Attorneys for Jean's family say two witnesses told them details that contradict Guyger's account.

"They heard knocking down the hallway followed by a woman's voice that they believe to be officer Guyger saying, 'Let me in. Let me in,'" attorney Lee Merritt said.

The family's attorneys say one of the witnesses then heard gunshots followed by a man's voice. "What we believe to be the last words of Botham Jean which was 'Oh my god, why did you do that?'" Merritt said.Allison Jean wants to know what happened to her son. "I'm not satisfied that we have all the answers," Allison said.

I'd be interested in the timing of when she made her statement, that night or days later when she had time to possibly concoct a story.  I find it hard to believe that the victim was walking around in his apartment, in the dark, with the door left ajar.  I wouldn't find it hard to believe that she came home from a long day's work, and the upstairs neighbor was making noise so she thought she'd go up there and shut him up.

She was not arrested for three days, which gave her plenty of time to construct a story that fits with the evidence; e.g. "I parked on a different floor than usual (?), therefore I forgot what floor I live on."  If this apartment building has assigned parking spaces (like every apartment complex I've ever seen), you'll know the fix is in.

Most apartment complexes I lived in did not assign exact spots.  You need a sticker to use the lot but actual spots was first come first serve.

That's a fair point.  Someone claimed that picture was from her social media account, but I haven't been able to corroborate that.

But that wasn't really the point I was objecting to.  You said that the picture didn't really have much to do with the topic unless she was the one giving the signal, and that's not accurate; if she was OK with it (meaning, she knew about it and didn't object), then it is absolutely relevant to the topic at hand.  So if she was the person who posted it, or she liked it, or she made a flippant comment on it without addressing the problem, all of those indicate tacit acceptance.

However, before we can even address the issue of whether she endorsed this picture, we should first come to an agreement on what we are looking at.  Do you agree that this guy is making gestures supporting white supremacy, or no?  Because it seems kind of pointless to argue about whether she's complicit if you're ultimately going to take the position of, "These are perfectly innocent hand gestures that have nothing to do with racism."

edit: On a related note, I fundamentally reject the idea of saying "I'm not a real racist guys, I was just shouting 'Blood And Soil' to trigger the libs" as an excuse.  In this case, simulated support for white supremacy is indistinguishable from genuine support for white supremacy.  You can't pretend to be a white supremacist while marching next to your political allies who are waving swastika flags.

Maybe if those gestures actually mean white power or something of the sorts. And maybe if she actually knows/knew that those symbols mean white power or something of the sorts. And just maybe, if she actually looked down to see that he was making hand gestures at all. Most people look at the camera when taking a picture, not down at other peoples hands.

The fact is that I've never even heard of the "OK" gesture being a racist gesture until all the fake news last week at the Kavanaugh hearing. So I guess if I was in a random picture with someone I know making a random hand gesture that I knew nothing about then I would be "the racist of the week" too. Give me a break.

Even if she made a mistake, and even if she was an on duty cop, shooting someone twice cause he didn't listen to your voice commands is unacceptable.  When have we as a society decided that it's ok for police to kill people. It's never ok, what happened to de-escalation and to calling for backup.

Every time a cop shoots someone and it's found that there wasn't a gun pointed at them, they should go to jail for murder. every single time. Last resort should never be the first resort.

The more I see about this case the more I think there is something fishy going on. Not sure if she was under some sort of influence, if she had a previous relationship with victim or what but it doesn't make much sense to me.

My wife got pulled over a few years ago and did not have her purse or insurance. My daughter was with her and texted me to bring her purse as they were blocks from my house. I pulled in front of the female officer so they could see and proceeded to walk back. The officer went apeshit on me and was shaking with her hand on her gun. She was literally shaking and voice cracking with gun drawn but not pointed at me. I was scared.. LOL.  I remember later speaking with my wife about it and debating if we should contact the Chief as she obviously didn't have the nerves to be an officer.

I know many police officers and deputies and they are where they should be but obviously some people aren't cut out to be officers. It's a stressful job to begin with so if you get rattled easily you need to find something else to do. 

What about toy guns, or things that could be mistaken for a gun?

Heard on the radio this morning that the man in the photo has explained that the photo is from a birthday party where someone (I believe they said her dad) was turning 69. Apparently he was trying to form the numerals 69 to mark the event.

That's way more believable than "white power".

BTW, this might have something to do with why cops are so quick on the draw...easy to throw criticism when you're behind your keyboard all day.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/shocking-video-gunman-shoots-lapd-190348496.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/shocking-video-gunman-shoots-lapd-190348496.html)

I would agree that if he was making a racist gesture and she was aware of that and approved of the picture then yes that would be a strong indicator of being a racist. Since it now appears that he was not making a racist gesture it means that just about anyone can be made to look like a racist if that's your intent and people should know better then to jump to conclusions. Note that this doesn't mean she's NOT a racist either. It means that we should wait for all the details to come out before judging her. In my opinion I find her story at this point plausible and tragic. I reserve the right to change my mind as more of the facts come out.

^I think that's all anyone is asking right now.  It may seem like me and some others are defending this lady, we aren't.  Things are looking like she'll be in jail for the rest of her life.  But to throw all this other unclaimed, far left accusatory garbage is getting really old.

The nice thing about the Internet is that certain types of factual claims get verified pretty quickly.  So we'll see whether this guy's explanation holds up, or whether he is as clumsy of a liar as his sister-in-law.

On the subject of clumsy lies (https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2018/09/dallas-media-have-blindly-accepted-what-the-cops-tell-them-about-botham-jean-killing/):

There is a degree to which a journalist must sometimes rely on accounts from interested, unaccountable parties for their scoops, and so long as this is done with due consideration for the credibility of the source, it is not necessarily a sin. There was nothing wrong, then, with J.D. Miles reporting via Twitter that “the door was unlocked and she thought she was entering her unit when she saw victim in the dark.” Nor should anyone object to a host of NBC 5 reporters relaying an account from a “Dallas police officer” who spoke on condition of anonymity that, on the contrary, Guyger actually “put the key in and struggled with the lock” and then “put down several things she was holding and continued to fight with the key when the resident swung open the door and startled her.” But when it becomes apparent — as it did to The Intercept’s Shaun King — that the two accounts being provided by the same agency are entirely different, it is prudent to stop regarding the law enforcement community as the most reliable source of information on an incident involving a vastly unusual killing by one of their own.

The ranks are already closing.  This is already shaping up as a textbook case of the need for police reform.

I'm not defending shit. I'm also not ready to say she needs to spend her life in jail. If she did make a mistake, it was a very big mistake and someone is dead. That's not to be taken lightly. However, this is real life and mistakes happen regularly, regardless of whether the lynch mob wants to admit it or not. If indeed it was a mistake, then a Manslaughter charge is warranted in my opinion.


It's also important to note that a felony charge will remove her from law enforcement and her ability to buy or possess  a firearm. If facts come out that she did this intentionally, fine charge her with murder and punish her accordingly. You guys can't even wait until all the facts are out before you're trying to burn people at the stake. But I'm sure that waiting for facts makes me a racist. After all, the OK gesture, 69 gesture, and Ultra White Power gesture are all the same in liberal never never land, LMAO...

I have all the facts I need at this point, an unarmed man was shot inside his own apartment by an intruder. This was negligence, not a mistake. She needs to be convicted.

Thanks, you just made my point, manslaughter/Reckless Conduct would be the correct charge. Unless you want to split hairs about the definitions of negligence vs reckless.

And in that case. Recklessness and negligence, the risk level is the same. But with recklessness, the accused must have been aware of the risk involved with their actions and proceeded anyhow. With negligence, the accused was not aware of the risks but should have known what those risks were. Seems to me that legally, recklessness is worse than negligence.

Her entering his apartment was reckless.  The firing of her gun with the intent to kill or d gbh was intentional.

Yes, she intended to fire her weapon. It didn't fire itself. I thought we all were on the same page with that fact.

Or are you trying to say insinuate that she intentionally went to this particular apartment to intentionally kill this particular individual?

What I am saying is her “mistake” is a mitigating factor in a charge of trespass, burglary, or home invasion, but not murder.

What I'm saying is that unless some substantial evidence comes out, murder charge isn't going to stick and she's probably going to walk. But to you guys it doesn't matter. Might as well just skip trial and give her the chair. You guys have already labeled the OK/White Power/69 gesture flasher a racist with no evidence. I'm fairly certain that if the victim she shot was white, this topic or thread wouldn't even exist here.

I fully expect she walks or gets a slap on the wrist.  It is extremely rare a white cop gets much punishment for murdering a minority regardless of the evidence.

Well, assuming that her story is mostly accurate and no more convincing evidence comes to light. Charge her with Manslaugher/Reckless Conduct, 5-7 years in jail and max fine of $10k. She'll have a felony, lose her career, never hold a firearm again and everything else that comes with a felony.

I think you are talking about an on duty cop. An off duty cop gets no such treatment at least that's not been my experience. She's going to spend a significant amount of time in jail.

I guess it all depends on what you believe is more plausible:

a) She entered the wrong apartment (because she parked on a different floor), and rather than recognizing she was not in her own home, she shot the person who lived there as an intruder

or

b) The guy in the apartment directly above her was making some sort of noise, she went up there to straighten him out, banged on the door demanding that he open it, and after he did, things escalated and she shot him

Ironically enough, the fact that she is not going with B out of the gate makes it seem less likely that it's the case.  Because god knows that if a white female cop said that she was confronting an angry black man and she shot him because She Feared For Her Life, no jury in this country would convict her.

That's what's most puzzling about this whole event.  Why bother with the multiple stories about open door/closed door/locked door when she can straight up just say "I went there to confront him about his loud noise and he was scary so I shot him"?  I think she's getting bad legal advice telling her that it's better to risk a conviction on manslaughter than an acquittal on murder.  Perhaps there's some evidence to come that is problematic.

I don't know about Texas but in Florida the murder charge includes the lesser charge of manslaughter in the jury instructions so a person can still get convicted.

100% agree with you here Spider. Either her story is mostly true or she's a terrible liar. She could have come up with 10 things that would have probably been better off for her to escape jail time.

or c) she was banging the guy and had a messy breakup

or d) She went to the wrong apartment (for whatever reason) and tried her key in the lock but the lock wouldn't open. As she's fumbling with the lock the man inside opens the door and startles her and she pulls her revolver and shoots him. Realizing that it's not her apartment and this is not going to look good she calls 911 and tells a story about how the door was ajar and so she goes inside thinking that someone has broken into her apartment, sees a man in the dark, tells him to get down on the ground but he doesn't so she shoots him. Later when this story is relayed to the police they start punching holes in the story because her finger prints were found all over the lock, if the door was ajar why are her finger prints on the lock? Also why would the door be ajar if the apartment is dark, he went to bed without shutting the front door? Also the evidence points to the man being in the doorway at the time he was shot not inside the apartment. Also the lady next door never heard any commands to the guy to get down but she clearly heard you call 911. Now the officer tells the police what actually took place because that actually corresponds with the evidence knowing that while she's likely going to be convicted of manslaughter that's better then possibly being convicted of murder if the jury doesn't believe the story she made up.

This seems the most likely to me.

Pappy, you have the order backwards.  The first story was "closed door," while the current (and official, as per the arrest warrant) story is "door ajar."

If there are fingerprints on the lock, she'll need to go back to version 1.

Not sure why the arrest warrant would be the official version. I read that the arrest warrant was very strange and left a lot of questions unanswered. I heard both versions the first day I heard about the story so I have no idea which one came out first, but the official version will be the one told at the trial. Will be interesting to see which version that is.

Why would there be fingerprints on the lock? Do you guys mean doorknob? I don't personally do it but I can see someone still grabbing the knob on an ajar door. Touching a lock, assuming deadbolt, makes no sense in any scenario.

There are lots of unanswered questions, and evidence, that won't be made publicly available for a year or two-unless they decide not to charge her.  I'd be interested in hearing the 911 call.  Was she still in uniform? etc.

What's the trial in Chicago or Detroit where the victim's family has just recently received the body cam footage from two years ago?

As long as it is understood that the "official" version of this story might not actually be the "true" version... ;)

As it is in EVERY trial. It's up to the jury to try to determine what the actual version of events is and then base their decision on that version of the events.

It's the version that she has committed to on paper, or to put it another way, it's a version that her buddies at the PD can't sweep under the rug while pretending it never existed.

So if she wants to revise it later, she will have to explain why she didn't give the correct story the first time.

She was still in uniform.

Well that's just speculation on my part. I don't really know what the lock looks like, it may have very little surface area so maybe no prints. What if they just found prints on the door near the lock which would suggest that she was attempting to unlock the door? You don't need to attempt to unlock a door left ajar is my point. The doorknob wouldn't really prove anything either way as you could touch the doorknob to either attempt to unlock the door or if just opening the door if it was ajar. I'm just saying that the story has to match the evidence. If it doesn't the story is not believable. All we really have at this point is the story and very little evidence. When the evidence comes out we'll have a better shot at determining the validity of the story.

But that's not necessarily HER version. That's the version that was put to paper by whomever filled out the arrest warrant. Now maybe it's based on an interview with her, but she can easily say that's not what I said they got it wrong unless they have that interview recorded which they might. That would be very interesting to see/hear don't you think?

So I googled the arrest warrant and read it.  It's really just some basic information that can satisfy a Judge to sign the arrest warrant.  The statements made by the Texas Ranger in preparing the warrant obviously are based on statements made by the suspect.  So what doesn't make sense to me (and apparently to you Pappy) is that it says the suspect inserted her key into the lock to open the door, but then says the door was already ajar.  So why would she put her key into a door that was already ajar?

Another thing I'd like to know is what were the "commands" that were ignored?  What did the victim do or say when these "commands" were given to him?

The contents of what was found in the shooters apartment has been sealed (because her privacy matters) but on the day of the victim’s funeral it was released that pot was found in his apartment. 

Of course it was!  These stories are never complete without the police department smearing the victim.
I presume they never found a DUI in his past, or it would have already came out.

If he had walked into her apartment and shot her, would they have sealed his apartment to protect his privacy while disclosing that she had some ecstasy pills in her dresser drawer?  The very thought is laughable.

NRA claims that if Jean had owned a gun he would have even able to defend himself and would be alive today.  What are these people smoking?

Castile’s mom, not surprisingly, disagrees with that sentiment.

That sounds like a more justifiable punishment

I realize this female officer appears to be nuts but I saw this and it made me laugh. With all the "white power" symbols popping up everywhere this one kind of stood out. i have no idea if it is real or not but it is pretty funny if it is considering how quickly white people get blasted for doing this. 
(https://i.redd.it/mz10hw5y4mm11.jpg)

^^^ He's saying something is OK?  Or is this just one of the old "made ya look" things?

Based on the length of Kaep's hair in that picture, it seems like that picture was taken prior to 2016.  If so, this revelation is on par with someone finding a picture of Abraham Lincoln doing a Nazi salute 70 years before that meant something.

Wow. Really? A 2 year old picture of Kaep means nothing but a who knows how old picture of the cop with someone ELSE making a gesture is perfectly legit to judge her a racist? Really? I'm pretty sure no one really thinks that Kaep was making a white power gesture, but to justify this picture while at the same time arguing strongly that the other picture meant something COMPLETELY different is quite telling.

Police officer shoots an unarmed man in his own home bail is set and she is released about an hour after being taken in to custody.

Nine people arrested for peacefully protesting the shooting (there crime was blocking traffic, nobody died, nobody was even injured because of their actions, some people were inconvenienced) took 2 days to set bail while they were in jail.

Yeah everyone is being treated equitablely.

Life isn't fair, better get used to it. Guess you never been in jail before. I spent a weekend in jail once because I hopped a 1 foot tall chain link fence while dropping off a car payment. Course there are a LOT of extenuating circumstances but you don't want to hear about any of that. Sorry Hoodie but you're making a LOT of accusations without really knowing any of the details. I expected more from you.

Apples and oranges. Did they break the law? Yes or no? That's the only thing that really matters in anything you posted.

That is the point of this thread.  

The Dallas police do not treat people fair specially people of color.  There is a term for that.....it is called racism.

Who exactly did they treat unfairly in relation to the exact topic of this thread? Or is this just "We black, we the victim" like usual.

Jaywalking vs homocide.  Jaywalkers spend two days in jail, killer is free in an hour.  That matters.

I got news for you, I'm white. The Garland Police officers that arrested me were white. Yeah I'm 100% sure that the Dallas police officer got some "special" treatment because she's a Dallas police officer, I would expect that. The protesters got the EXACT same treatment that I received from the Dallas police. Got nothing to do with color about 95% of the time. Sure 5% is 5% too much, but lets keep it in perspective, police are human too just like you and Spider. They judge people when they shouldn't just by the color of their skin, doesn't necessarily make them racist.

Doesn't matter at all. The two aren't related and there are multiple circumstances that could affect the amount of time before someone makes bail.

That literally is the definition of racism.

No, that's the definition of racial prejudice or racial bias and pretty much everyone is guilty of it. To become a racist there has to be an additional element of superiority or discrimination against a race or races. I don't see a black person EXACTLY the same as I see a white person, but I don't believe I'm superior to a black person (or any other color for that matter) and I wouldn't discriminate against a black person, therefore I'm not a racist. But I'm not naive enough to believe that I don't have a racial prejudice or racial bias as most people do. It's pretty obvious that you do as well. There's a difference between being prejudiced and being a racist. Prejudice is part of the human make up. It's the person that can see their own prejudice and NOT let that interfere with their actions that is the difference between a racist and the one that is not.

Pappy13 gets it. If Hoodie is walking down the street with a Rolex on his wrist and some thugged out loud talking black guys with gold teeth are walking toward him in the opposite direction. You can bet you ass that he's thinking and acting differently than if a 75 year old grandmother is coming toward him.

But what if, instead of a 75 year old grandmother, it's some thugged out loud talking white guys with massive tats/piercings are walking toward him?

If you want to get a realistic bearing on someone's racial triggers, you should probably avoid comparing thugs to grandmothers...

I am certainly in favor of consistency.  So I propose a compromise: if Kaep's picture was taken in 2016 or later, I will concede that the OK signal is innocent. But if Kaep's picture is before 2016, and the picture of the picture of the cop's brother is from 2016 or later, you'll concede the OK signal in the latter was intended to signal support for white supremacy.  Deal?

I would like to see the details. My experience has always been that simple crimes don't require seeing a judge because they had pre established bail. Did they just not take advantage? Also, when were they arrested? A Friday evening arrest that requires seeing a judge means you don't get out till Monday.

Why? Because it's the truth? It's a simple question? Would he or any rational person act differently? Keeping with the topic of statistics. Black people are statistically more likely to be violent criminals. That doesn't mean that the 75 year old grandmother isn't a serial killer with an affinity for expensive watches. What it means is that over time people develop prejudice or bias because it's human nature. Everyone does it.

I'd feel the same either way.  

I also think if I told someone "I was scared this thugged out loud talking white guy with massive tats/piercings walking towards me in the street was going steal my rolex" would be taken differently than if I told someone "I was scared this thugged out loud talking black guy with massive tats/piercings walking towards me in the street was going steal my rolex".  In the former, there is no way someone would call me racist, but in the later there is a possibility it would be followed up with, "why, because he is black?"  I think that has to go with people assuming and jumping to conclusions, which is done a lot on here, let alone everywhere else.  

Why would anyone concede anything like that? It's already been debunked that the OK gesture is a white power gesture and was a 4chan hoax. The cop's brother already said that he was doing a "69" gesture. You, me, or anyone else is in no position to decide what he was doing with his hands. Unless of course you are a mind reader? Can you read his mind Spider?

Black people do the same shit. Bring up black on black crime and to black people and then the topic becomes about how all white people are rapist, child molesters, and mass shooters. Or maybe how all white people smell like wet dogs. Prejudice and bias isn't unique to white people, it's unique to all people...

^I've heard that white people smell like piss, never heard wet dog, lol.

Me too...and have.


But now we're talking about societal mores, rather than an individual's racial preconceptions and how they influence their behavior. Don't get me wrong...I completely agree with your assessment of how people would react. Who could argue against that, with the proof being right there in the comments section of virtually every article on the internet, whether the article has any bearing on race or not. I just think that if we each police our own thoughts/actions, most of the social issues surrounding race would disappear like a rich fart on a breezy Summer night.

Would that be setting the bar for humanity a wee bit too high?  I sure hope not.

How about this. We both concede that both pictures mean exactly zero without knowing all the facts around those pictures? You know what I had suggested with the first picture when it first came out.

Why does the radical right always bring up the same old tired "75-year old serial killer pimp grandmother" argument...

 ::)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSL9WENX4AA00UE?format=jpg)
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*Cb5LtZsqi9qTjwBwi8DazQ.png)
Again, when actual white supremacists like Richard Spencer and Milo Yiannopoulos start using your "fake hoax" hand signal, it is no longer fake.

I see.  So when Urban Meyer said his wife never told him about his assistant coach's wife coming to her with domestic violence issues, do we have to take him at his word because none of us are mind readers?

Maybe he was making a 69.  Or maybe he's covering his tracks after his wife deleted the post.

Bingo.  I am going to react the same to a white person in a business suit as I do a black person in a business suit.  I am going to react the same to a white person with a KKK neck tattoo as to someone with an ms13 tattoo. 

So until we know or at least until we have some real evidence to suggest one way or the other how about we don't judge him or her? That's all that I'm asking. Is that too much to ask? Apparently it is for many.

There is a rather ridiculous level of intellectual dishonesty going on here.

To be clear: the implicit premise of citing that picture of Kaep - a man blackballed from the NFL for protesting police brutality against minorities, mind you  - is that if the OK sign is a racist signal, I guess he must be racist too, checkmate libs!

It doesn't work like that, and we all know it.  Words and symbols are not 100% racist or 100% innocent; context matters.  If you find a picture of Jesse Jackson appearing to do a Nazi salute, that does not mean that the only two conclusions are a) Jesse Jackson is actually a Nazi or b) the Nazi salute has nothing to do with racism.

He can't hear you, his tinfoil hat is covering his ears.

And by the same token just because you found a picture of a white supremacist using the OK gesture doesn't make that a white supremacist gesture by default. Nor does it mean that the cop's brother is using the gesture in any other manner than he's already explained. The point is that YOU DON'T KNOW unless you are a mind reader.

Actually, we do have some evidence already.  The evidence we have is that a cop walked into another man's apartment and shot him dead as an "intruder," was not arrested for several days, and then after all that time to think over the events and get her story straight, offered conflicting versions of (still ridiculous) explanations for this homicide.

You are bending over backwards to give every benefit of the doubt to this woman and her family, ascribing the most innocent explanations whenever possible.  She killed an innocent, unarmed man in his own home seconds after entering.  Perhaps she does not deserve your generosity.

Good for you. But you did notice that it was a white person rather than a black person didn't you? You didn't just think there's a guy in a suit. Maybe you thought great look at that successful black man, that's great to see or vice versa for the white guy if that's your bias. Would you think the same about the other race? Be honest. If you say there's absolutely no difference then I don't believe you and I know some psychology teachers that would also argue that you did think differently about the 2 situations even though you reacted the same way. Your mind thought about it and then you chose to act accordingly. That's human nature and it's not just race, it's everything. Gender. Hair color. The way the person is walking. What kind of suit he is wearing. Smiling or not smiling, etc. Our minds make connections about a million of things in a fraction of a second and then we act on those thoughts. It's our actions that count, not the connections that our minds make irrational or not.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/you-illuminated/201208/the-neuroscience-racial-bias

Maybe she doesn't. That doesn't however explain you labeling her brother as a white supremacist with absolutely no proof. Your position seems kind of racist to me...

That's evidence that the picture taken was of a man making a white supremist gesture? Wow, you have some incredible powers of perception there Mr Holmes. I noticed that in your statement there you left out something incredibly important. Race. How on earth did you make the leap that the picture taken was of a man making a white supremist gesture without knowing the race of the cop and the intruder? It's only when you START with that information and then let it lead you to what you want to find do you get to that conclusion. If the cop had been black and the intruder white, would you have reached the same conclusion? No of course you wouldn't have.

Actually it's not me doing the bending over backwards here.

Huffington Post and Vox are making you a far left loony toon Spider.  That's Brietbart level stuff for the left.

LMFAO......

nope the closest equivalent to vox is the national review or standard. (which i often dsagree with but are coherent and add rational discourse)

 huffington post is the lefts version of washington times. 

the closest equivalent to brreitbart is occupy democrats

yes, pappy i will often notice someones race. in general it is the second most likely observed characteristic only beaten by gender.   but this a fucking strawman discussion.

Amber entered a mans apartment and shoot the person who lived there.  She should be treated like anyone else.

people protesting it were overcharged so they would have to spend two days in jail rather than be able to post bail sunday night.   

I think you're fooling yourself, all of those are very close in their respected bias, with the Washington times being closer to center than any you mentioned.

NOTE:  occupy democrats is more far left than Brietbart is right.  Brietbart is only slightly more bias than both HuffPo and Vox, something that the left thinks is fair and balanced lol.  Point being, ALL of these are bias propaganda and shouldn't be used as a basis for any argument.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/)

Well, after rejecting the insultingly transparent lie the shooter is currently offering as her explanation, I tried to devise an explanation that makes more sense. I'd say "she's white-supremacy curious and her racial bias led her to confront and murder an innocent black man in his own home" is significantly less absurd than "she didn't notice she was in the wrong apartment and shot the rightful tenant before realizing where she was." But perhaps you think her story is reasonable.

Are you sure it wasn't CNN or the New York Times?  Tough to tell when anything to the left of the Wall Street Journal is considered the far left liberal media.

^I don't know, do you see CNN on equal footing as FoxNews, just on different ends of the spectrum?  Because they are almost exactly equal in their respective bias (left vs right).  Stick to the NYT, its the closest YOU will ever get to down the middle (left-center bias).  You really need to stop projecting your crap, because I do not hesitate to call out right bias either, there is just so much more left propaganda out there.

EDIT:  Yes, I consider CNN to be propaganda at this point, as well as FoxNews

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/ (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/)
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/ (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/)

You're making a classical mistake in your proof. Essentially your proof boils down to this.

- White Cop shot black man and only plausible explanation is because she's a racist.
- Racist white cop is seen in photograph with person making gesture
- By association other person must also be racist.
- Other racist person is making racist gesture.

Seems logical but it's not. You got to a faulty conclusion because your proof is backwards. You're starting with an axiom that you don't know to be true that the cop is a racist. You have to start with a statement that you know to be true for a proof to work and you didn't. You can't start with the premise and prove it's true by working backwards from the premise, you start with a true statement and work towards proving the premise. What's worse is then you used your faulty conclusion to proof your original premise is true.

- Person seen in picture is making a racist gesture.
- Person must be a racist.
- Racist person seen in picture with white cop.
- By association white cop must be racist.
- Racist white cop shot black man because he was black.

This also is a faulty conclusion because again you started with something you don't know to be true. They seem to back each other up when in reality neither proof supports the other because they are both based on belief and not fact. The really sad part is that you can't even see the mistake you made because of your own bias.

Both of your descriptions of what happened are missing very important parts... the parts that came first:

- cop kills innocent unarmed man in his own home
- cop offers ridiculous explanation for why this happened

If the cop had offered a explanation that wasn't a transparent lie, we wouldn't be having so much trouble trying to figure out why she killed him.

I notice that you don't seem to be saying that you believe her story.  Do you also think she is lying?

I believe the below is approximately what happened or something along these lines. I do believe that she is lying about some things to try to save herself from prison which I think is what just about anyone would do in her position. I don't believe that she is a racist and shot him because he was black. The only reason that I believe this at this point is because I have no evidence to the contrary. I await the trial to see what her official version is and then I'll make a decision again whether or not I believe her.

http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=25327.msg353863#msg353863

Murder? No.
Manslaughter? Yes.

First off, I don't agree that "just about anyone" would slander an innocent person that they killed, to try to save themselves prison time.  If you understand that what you did was wrong and you're genuinely remorseful, you would accept guilt and try to cut a plea deal.

But it seems that while we both agree that this cop is lying to cover up a homicide, you seem think that lying to cover up racism is a bridge too far.  Suffice it to say that you and I have very different opinions on the honor of lying, homicidal police.

There's a HUGE gap between thinking that an off duty cop accidentally shot and killed a man whom she thought was inside her apartment while she was trying to enter it to thinking that she simply didn't like the guy and went to his apartment to confront him and then shot and killed him primarily because he was black. Is that your version of the events or somewhat close to it? That's the difference between murder and manslaughter in my opinion. You have your opinion, I have mine. Whether or not she's remorseful about it and whether or not she's lying about some of the events to prevent some jail time doesn't much matter to me in either case. Her honor is not what we are debating, it's whether or not she's guilty of murder or manslaughter. You don't seem to really be interested in the truth or justice, you seem to only be interested in revenge. I truly do feel sorry for anyone that feels that way.

It's not a bridge too far, there just isn't any evidence yet that's the case and 2 wrongs won't make it right. Despite what you think not every time a white cop kills a black man is the cop a racist homicidal cop.

So wait... you're saying that you buy the story that she just didn't know what apartment she was in?  I'm confused.  That's the part that I consider a ridiculous, transparent lie.  If you buy that then I don't understand which part you think she's lying about.

And I'm not saying that she strapped up and headed upstairs thinking that she was going to bag herself a dead n----- that night.  I'm saying that I think it's likely that she has the same mindset that many of these other cops involved in the killing of unarmed civilians seem to have had: black people are Violent and Dangerous, and extreme force is immediately justified in the most minor of altercations.

pondwater's posts in this thread are a perfect example: black people are statistically more likely to be criminals, so we need to watch them carefully, crack down swiftly, and throw as many of them as possible in our (violent, dehumanizing) jails, which makes it tougher for them to get jobs on the outside and leads to more lawbreaking and violence.  How many of these Murderous Chicago Thugs do you think started their life of crime by being picked up for some non-violent drug charge?  Sure would be nice if they were white and the police turned a blind eye (http://www.hamiltonproject.org/charts/rates_of_drug_use_and_sales_by_race_rates_of_drug_related_criminal_justice) to their drug use as they crack down on black neighborhoods.  (And before anyone says, "Why don't you just obey the law?": the point is that white people get to act normally while black people are punished severely for the same actions.  If white civilians were being treated like black civilians are, instead of talking about racial bias among police we would be talking about how to combat our out-of-control police state.)

You cannot use the arrest/conviction rates of a racially-biased justice system as proof that the victims of that bias are more likely to be criminals, any more than you can use the arrest/conviction rates of Jews in Nazi Germany as proof that Jews are inherently more likely to be criminals.  But pondwater and people like him continue to repeat these statistics as rationalization for a system that treats blacks as subhuman.

More succinctly I buy the story that she didn't know which apartment she was trying to enter. I work in a building that has a 7 story garage. I park my car in the same place on the 3rd floor of that garage every day (when there's a spot open on that floor). We've been in that building for a couple years and I have on 3 occasions that I can remember gotten off on the wrong floor by accident and didn't notice that I was on the wrong floor until I couldn't find my car. Just about everyone on my floor has had this happen to them at least once. We laugh about it at work. I also used to work in another building and twice in the month after I started working in the new building I drove into the parking lot of the old building before realizing that I didn't work there anymore. We are very much creatures of habit.

I find it VERY plausible that she could have gotten off on the wrong floor on accident and went to the wrong apartment, the one right above her own apartment and tried to enter that apartment not realizing that the number on the door wasn't the right one and either not seeing the mat was the right one or maybe not recognizing it as the right color or whatever. My understanding is that this section of the building was rather dark. My understanding is that she was also rather tired after working a double shift. Maybe she was using her phone or fiddling with her groceries and she was distracted or whatever. I'm not excusing any of her actions, I'm just saying whether or not her story seems plausible. It seems plausible to me. I have no way of knowing whether it's accurate or not, I only know it seems plausible to me and I would think it's plausible to anyone who's experienced something similar to what I mentioned above. Guess this has never happened to you or maybe it has and you have forgotten or maybe you just think there's a difference here between an officer who shoots someone on accident and something as trivial as not being able to find your car or driving to the wrong place of business. I don't.

I'm not sure which part she might be lying about because I haven't heard her official version yet. I'm suspecting there might have been some lying which would explain the multiple stories coming out about the events. Perhaps it's just that the police got the events wrong. I kinda doubt that. I kinda think she was maybe changing the events a bit to help explain the events. I think she might be lying about giving him commands if in fact she says that what she did. No one heard that. I think she might be lying about where she shot him. In one version of the events she was inside the apartment after going through an ajar door in the other she was at the door trying to enter what she thought was her apartment when she was startled. Why the 2 different versions? Was one perhaps the truth and the other the lie? Which one is the lie? If it's that she was inside the apartment because the door was ajar maybe she was outside the door when he startled her and she pulled her gun and fired without any provocation, but that's manslaughter not murder. The lie may have been her attempt to be found innocent of all charges rather than of manslaughter. You're thinking that if she's lying she is covering up murder, I don't think that's necessarily the case.

And so it doesn't matter that no one heard any altercation? Especially the person who lived next door who said she didn't hear anything until the gunshots and then the officer calling 911? She lying too or just mistaken? Even the 2 women who said they heard voices didn't say the heard an argument, they heard banging on a door and let me in, but no argument. No escalation. So why do you think it occurred? Just because you think that's what ALWAYS happens? That's seems pretty unreasonable to me. At LEAST as unreasonable that she couldn't have simply made a mistake and went to the wrong apartment on accident. I'm sure you have heard the term Occam's razor. In the absence of any provable theory the simplest one tends to be the right one. I think that solution fits the bill here even if we don't like it.

I believe this is what we call a "teachable moment."

First off, I don't necessarily agree with the methodology of the website you're citing.  Neutrality and objectivity are not the same thing, and the former is much worse than the latter.  A media source that reports, "Republicans say Obama is a Muslim from Kenya who is attempting to invade Texas, while Democrats disagree," is avoiding bias, but presenting a false equivalence between two sides.  The news media has a responsibility to the truth, not to perfect neutrality.  Furthermore, to categorize sources on a +2 to -2 scale minimizes the spread in partisanship; to say that Daily Kos, MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News are all equally distant from the center is nonsense.

But let's roll with it.  According to your preferred source, Breitbart isn't "slightly more biased" than HuffPo or Vox; Breitbart is rated as a Questionable Source, noting, "Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right wing bias and publication of numerous false claims."  And what did they say for HuffPo and Vox, two sources you assert are equivalent to Breitbart?

"Overall, we rate HuffPost Left-Biased due to story selection and factually High due to proper sourcing of information."
"Overall, we rate Vox Left Biased due to wording and story selection that favors the left and highly factual based on proper sourcing."

So ultimately, you're saying that two sources rated "highly factual" are approximately equivalent to a site noted for "publication of numerous false claims." Sounds like business as usual when it comes to conservative perspectives on the media. The facts continue to have a liberal bias.

Everyone has gotten lost in a parking lot full of cars.  A parking lot is not your personal home.

The idea that I could enter an apartment, recognize that there is someone unexpected there, and have time to start shouting commands but not to recognize that this is not my apartment?  0.0% chance.  Complete and utter BS.

You don't consider banging on a door and shouting let me in an altercation?

This was not a "home" it was an apartment. An apartment that she had lived in 2 months I believe it was. It looks for all intents an purposes pretty much like any other apartment in the building except for it's location on the floor which would have matched up perfectly with her own. The only difference between the door of this apartment and her own were the numbers and the rug and of course the floor which she says she got wrong because she parked on the wrong floor. It's no different then not being able to find your car and then realizing the floor numbers are wrong. If there had been a car that was the same make, model and color in the place where my car was, you can be sure that I would have put my keys in the lock even though the license plate was not correct. In fact I nearly did this once as well when someone with the same make, model and color as my car parked a few spots down from me. When I saw a huge dent on the side my initial reaction was someone had hit my car but after closer inspection realized it was just another car similar to mine. It's very easy to make this mistake. VERY easy.

And I don't buy this is what happened. This I believe was the lie. I believe the truth is she was never inside the apartment she was trying to get in and her key wouldn't work and while she was trying to get in he heard someone trying to open the door and opened it from the inside. It startled her because she wasn't expecting anyone to be inside what she thought was her apartment and in the heat of the moment she pulled her gun and fired. Only then did she realize this was NOT her apartment and she had not shot someone inside her apartment but rather someone inside their own apartment.

So you think she banged on the door and shouted let me in and when he did she shot him? So she felt threatened by him because he opened the door for her after she requested he do so? Or maybe you don't think she thought he was black and was just going to confront the man upstairs but then when he opened the door and she realized he was black she thought, "fuck it just shoot him". You already said you didn't believe she strapped it on to go up there to shoot him, so what do you think happened exactly? No I don't buy ANY of those as plausible or at least not any more plausible then the one I believe to be the case.

If you live in an apartment, then that apartment is your "home" (but not a "house").  However, the distinction is not really important here.

How long she was living in her apartment has little to do with anything.  The outside would look just as similar no matter how long she was there, but that doesn't even matter... because I'm sure the inside of HIS apartment looks nothing like hers.  ESPECIALLY if she just moved in!

Here's a video of his apartment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSQvSb1CEs4

No, it absolutely is not.  Have you EVER been standing in someone else's front doorway and been confused as to whether you were in your own home?  And if so, how long did that confusion last?  Long enough for you to think someone had broken into your residence?

Are you seriously claiming that it's "plausible" to be confused as to how the inside of your place looks compared to the inside of someone else's place?  That is insultingly absurd.

"Witnesses say that around 10PM, they heard the suspect, A, banging on the door of the victim, B, demanding to be let in.  Shortly thereafter, gunshots were heard.  The victim lives in the apartment directly above the suspect."

I'd say Sherlock Holmes can stay on his couch for this one.

Pappy lets continue your analogy.......  You see a car you think is yours.  Except your keys don’t work. You then notice someone sitting is in the car trying to start it, you pull out a gun fire a bullet thru the window killing them to prevent from jumpstarting your car and steal it.  After killing them you notice that the licence plate doesn’t match.
 

You really couldn't sound like a more pompous ass if you tried.  We can discuss all you want, but don't act like your extremist self is going to "teach" me anything.
The truth is all I want, from a source I can trust.  The farther the bias is from center, the less likely I am to trust it.  You can be factually accurate and still have a bias with what your trying to get across.  Example, we discussed how illegals pay taxes.  You quoted an article from Vox on how they pay $23 billion a year, yet no where does it state that the cost for illegals is 2x-5x more.  That's taking choice facts to create an argument when the real issue is the bigger picture.  To me, that is duping the public.

I never said anything about factual inaccuracies, I talked about bias.  I know Breitbart isn't credible, but I also know their bias to the right is almost as bad as those I mentioned on the left, difference being Vox and HuffPo are factually accurate...but on what?

LEFT BIAS

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation.  They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes.

In review, HuffPost publishes stories with strong emotionally loaded headlines such as “Comey Flips: ‘Vote for Democrats This Fall’” and “Trump Calls Female Reporter ‘So Obnoxious,’ Tells Her To Be Quiet.”


Let this be a "teachable moment" for you:  Fact don't have a bias, but can be used towards being bias.  "Cop shoots unarmed black Michael Brown"...that's a fact.  "Cop shoots Michael Brown as he attacked and try to take cops gun."  According to reports that is also a fact.

You say that you don't value balance over truth, but you keep making statement after statement indicating that you do.  How can you possibly compare a source that states facts to a source that lies and come away with the conclusion that they are roughly equivalent because they both have bias?  That's crazy.

Great example.  To put this in context, you said, "Correct me if I'm wrong but illegal aliens don't pay taxes." That statement is factually wrong.  But when I cited the Vox article with stats on how much taxes illegal immigrants pay, you cry foul because the article didn't also address the full budget impact.

No source is going to (or even can) address ALL facets of an issue.  You criticize Vox for not mentioning additional facts that support the point you were trying to make, but that game has no end; I can just as easily complain about a source that mentions the tax burden of illegal immigrants but doesn't mention the federal tax imbalance of low-tax red states, and so on.

Rather than being mad because a source cites facts that you don't like, we should agree to cite facts for our own positions, instead of expecting others to cite them for us.  And in this specific case, your biggest problem is that your claim was false: you said "illegal aliens don't pay taxes" when the fact is that they do.  And when that fact was pointed out to you, rather than admit your factual error, you go off on a rant about media bias. Balance over truth.

The idea that you would make a claim that is factually false and then complain that the source used to disprove you didn't explain enough of the picture makes no sense.  After all, you didn't seem to find it necessary to give a complex, nuanced explanation of how tax policy affects illegal immigrants; you simply claimed that they "don't pay taxes." And you were wrong.

Let me give you a slightly differ analogy that matches up with my version of the events.

You see a car you think is yours, except your keys don’t work. A man then opens the door from the inside and gets out of the car. You pull out a gun and shoot the man killing him. After killing him you notice that the licence plate doesn’t match and it's not your car after all.

So the question would be manslaughter or murder? In my opinion that's manslaughter.

By the way I don't think the scenario above is in any way different from the scenario that I had already laid out. Makes zero difference if it's your car or your apartment.

I contend that she never saw the inside of the apartment prior to shooting him. He opened the door and she shot him before she ever saw the inside of the apartment. So what the inside of the apartment looks like is irrelevant.

Let's play Prosecuting/Defense attorney here. I'll stipulate that had the defendant seen the inside of the apartment she would have known that it was not hers as long as you will stipulate that if she never saw the inside of the apartment prior to shooting him then she could have thought the apartment was her own at the time she shot him.

That's not what you said before. You said there was an escalation. Banging on a door and demanding to be let in is not a reason to shoot someone. Your claim is that she PURPOSELY and with INTENT to kill shot him. Please explain your reasoning.

Murder.  Not only that, even if it was your car it is still murder.  You are not allowed to use deadly force just because someone might have stolen something and is now leaving your car.  You can only use deadly force as self defense (or defense of others).  If you come home at night and see thru the window someone stealing your stuff you can’t go into your house and kill them.  If you believe your family is home and in danger you can go in to defend them.  But if your family is with you or you live alone, you are suppose to call the police not engage in vigilancy. 

I thought her story was the door was ajar and she opened it and then saw a figure in the back and shot him. But the story has changed a few times? Or maybe just not reported correctly.

Then you just lost the case, as she's already admitted (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2018/09/18/timeline-case-unfolded-since-dallas-officer-amber-guyger-killed-botham-jean) that she was inside the apartment when she shot him.  (The "I couldn't open the door" story was discarded long ago.)

The version of her story that's on the arrest warrant is:

According to the [arrest warrant], Guyger told authorities she had mistakenly parked on the fourth floor instead of the third and inserted her key into Jean's door, which was slightly ajar.

She told authorities the apartment was nearly completely dark and she thought she was being burglarized, gave verbal commands that were ignored and fired twice. She then called 911, gave first aid and turned on the lights. When 911 dispatch asked where she was, she returned to the front door to see the address and realized the apartment wasn't hers, the affidavit states.

Let's establish a couple of things from this story:

1) Guyger is claiming that Jean was in his "nearly completely dark" apartment with the front door ajar, on the one day she just happened to walk into the wrong unit
2) Guyger entered the apartment and shot him from inside it
3) Guyger turned on the lights and called 911
4) When the 911 operator asked her where she was, she went outside to check the apartment number (?!) and THEN discovered that she was in the wrong apartment

This story is clownishly insulting.

I actually said I believe exactly the opposite: she did not head upstairs with the intent of killing him.  I think she went upstairs with the intent of confronting him, demanded to be let into his home, there was a dispute after she was let in, and she shot him.  (And yes, there are differing witness accounts as to whether there was "loud discussion" before the gunfire.)

P.S. The electronically-locked doors in that apartment complex are self-closing (https://twitter.com/shaunking/status/1039610468791459840) (like those you would see in a hotel).  Someone's gonna need some overtime to sweep this one under the rug!

Since when does the arrest warrant determine what the truth is? Or even what your defense will be? The arrest warrant is nothing more than the reason you believe the person should be arrested. That's essentially the police version of events. The defendants version of events most likely will not be the same since the arrest warrant basically states why they believe you are guilty. Obviously the defendant is probably going to disagree with it.

I'll say this much Spider. If she sticks with the story that it's in the arrest warrant I think she will lose the case. I don't buy that version of the events either. I will be shocked if that's the defense that is used because that's an all or nothing defense. Either you are innocent or you're guilty of murder depending upon how the jury sees it.

Who said anyone was stealing something from my car? I never said I shot them because they were stealing something. In your version of the events there was a REASON for me to kill the person. I never said I had a reason to kill them. In fact I purposely avoided having any reason to kill them, because I NEVER intended to kill them. It was an accident. Pulling my gun and shooting them was pure reaction, not purposely done. I wasn't trying to stop them from stealing my car. I wasn't trying to stop them at all. I just reacted and pulled the gun and shot them without thinking. Yes I killed them, but it was NOT intentional. That's manslaughter, not murder. If that's not manslaughter than please explain to me what manslaughter is.

I'm not going by the story that was on the arrest warrant. I don't believe that story is the truth. I believe that story was concocted either by the defendant or by the police to try to make the shooting seem justifiable. I believe the story I gave is a more accurate depiction of what actually happened. The story I gave was initially given to the media but once the arrest warrant became public then it was quickly forgotten.

It doesn't!  But that's what HER story is (at least, right now).  Those events from the arrest warrant are what she said happened.

It's the story that SHE is claiming as the truth!

You are rejecting the words out of her own mouth... but instead of concluding that she's a liar who is concocting a story that is more favorable than what happened, you are somehow insisting that she is lying to make things look WORSE than they actually were!

I can't imagine a clearer example of the problem in this country, and why these anthem protests are needed.  A cop shoots an innocent, unarmed black man in his own home, and you are bending over backwards to interpret the situation as generously in her favor as possible... even ignoring what YOU AGREE are OBVIOUS LIES INTENDED TO COVER UP WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.

...this is insanity.

GUNS.
KILL.
PEOPLE.

You don't "accidentally" pull your gun and "not intend to kill" someone THAT YOU SHOT WITH YOUR GUN.  Choosing to shoot them is itself evidence that you intended for them to die.  That is what shooting someone entails.

You are illegally target shooting in your backyard and a ricochet kills a bystander.  That's manslaughter.
You're street racing, you t-bone cross traffic and kill someone.  That's manslaughter.
You're sliding down an upper deck guard rail at a stadium and fall on to someone below, who dies as a result of their injuries.  That's manslaughter.

None of those are intentionally pointing a weapon directly at a person and firing it.  That is not an "accident."  You intended to shoot them.

In this case, a manslaughter charge is not based on the premise that she didn't mean to shoot him; it's based on the premise that she believed she was legally defending her home from an intruder.  But that premise is ridiculous, because the idea that she thought she was in her home is laughable.  If a reasonable person would know that was not her apartment, it's murder, plain and simple.

I don't see how this is manslaughter. 

Manslaughter is causing someone's death through a separate crime.
But what's the other crime?

If she accidentally shot and killed him, thinking it was her house, there is no crime, right?  She might be civilly liable.
But since I believe she went there to confront him and ended up shooting him.  The idea that she thought it was her house is bullshit.

there are several constucts of manslaughter.  An unintentional death during a commission of a crime is one of them.

Others include negligent homocide, heat of passion. 

There could be a number of crimes

No, that's what the arrest warrant said she said. If she says "That's not what I said, the warrant is pure fabrication" unless they have evidence that's what she said (like a taped interview with her) it means nothing. Where is your source that she is claiming what's in the arrest warrant is the truth?

No, it's you who is insisting that the arrest warrant is what she said. I don't know that. I haven't heard that she said that. When she comes out and says that everything in the arrest warrant was exactly 100% the way it happened then I will believe that. You are assuming that everything the arrest warrant says is exactly the way she told it to the police. I don't know that. I don't know how you know that. And no, I don't believe that's how it happened. If that's her story, then I don't believe it, but I don't know that's her story right now. That story does not make sense to me either. If I was on the jury and she told that story I wouldn't buy it, but I don't know that's what's going to happen.

This is essentially what I'm claiming, negligent homicide. That's manslaughter, not murder. I don't believe the story that is in the arrest warrant. I don't know if that's what her defense will be. It very well might be and in that case I would expect a guilty verdict to murder. If the story she tells is like the one I have suggested I would expect a guilty verdict to manslaughter, a lesser charge. Heck it might not even go to trial, she may just plead guilty to manslaughter. She could also be found innocent of all charges which seems like what the arrest warrant wants me to believe, but I don't.

But she intended to kill. 

Just because you do kill doesn't mean you intended to kill. I'm pretty sure that even the arrest warrant doesn't claim she intended to kill him. The arrest warrant makes it sound like she is essentially confronting a burglar in her aparment and used deadly force because he was resisting. I don't buy that.

If this is the game you're playing, on what basis are you forming any opinion at all on what happened?  She has issued no direct statement on this matter.

You are making words up and putting them in her mouth for her.  The idea that the police department is misquoting the witness statement OF A POLICE OFFICER is delusional, man.

Every time I heard a cop talking about shooting their gun they always say their training is to shoot to kill. They don't train for anything else.

killing some one without a reason is murder.

Not completely. This story came from somewhere. It's the original story I heard on the radio. I don't know the origin of the story. It all changed when the arrest warrant came out, but there were 2 disctinctly different stories in the beginning. So yes some of it is conjecture on my part, but when I heard the story originally it was that she was trying to enter the apartment when he opened the door from the inside and she shot him. I'm not sure where that story came from, but it seems the most likely to me. The story that she went in when the door was ajar and saw a man in the dark and gave him verbal commands that he ignored and then she shot him I heard later.  That story sounds like an attempt to justify the killing. The story I originally heard was not trying to justify her actions they were saying it was an accidental shooting.

So what is manslaughter if it's not killing someone without a reason?

"Voluntary Manslaughter

In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing. The most common type of voluntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant is provoked to commit the Homicide. It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice.

If adequate provocation is established, a murder charge may be reduced to manslaughter. Generally there are four conditions that must be fulfilled to warrant the reduction: (1) the provocation must cause rage or fear in a reasonable person; (2) the defendant must have actually been provoked; (3) there should not be a time period between the provocation and the killing within which a reasonable person would cool off; and (4) the defendant should not have cooled off during that period...."

"Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another human being without intent. The absence of the intent element is the essential difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Also in most states, involuntary manslaughter does not result from a heat of passion but from an improper use of reasonable care or skill while in the commission of a lawful act or while in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony.

Generally there are two types of involuntary manslaughter: (1) criminal-negligence manslaughter; and (2) unlawful-act manslaughter. The first occurs when death results from a high degree of Negligence or recklessness, and the second occurs when death is caused by one who commits or attempts to commit an unlawful act, usually a misdemeanor..."

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter

would a reasonable person be provoked by someone being in their own house minding their own business?

you come home see your wife in bed with you neighbor.  you kill them that is manslaughter.  you go into your neighbors house see your neighbor in bed with his wife.  you kill them that is murder. 

If you go into your neighbors house see your neighbor in bed with his wife, turn to leave and toss a lit cigarette on the floor that starts a fire and your neighbor and his wife are killed in the fire that's manslaughter not murder. You had no reason to kill them, in fact that was not your intent at all but you did still cause their deaths.

I like this game let's keep playing. You make up some scenario that has no bearing whatsoever on this case at all and I'll make up some other scenario that also has no bearing whatsoever on this case at all and we'll pretend like it does. Nah, nevermind it sounds silly.

the key difference is in all your hypos, the person did not intend to kill someone.  she intended to kill him. 

So Mr. Mindreader. Did she intend to kill him, like she said to herself on the way home, "I'm gonna kill some motherfucker that I don't know in a different apartment".

Or did she intend to kill him at that moment to(in her mind) protect herself. Those are two very different things.

if you are armed, you have a responsibility to use the gun responsiblely.  He was in his own home.  She intended to kill him.  she wasn’t in danger.  even if it was her own apartment she could have retreated rather than confront him. 

Does the law require she try to retreat before defending herself? In Florida it does not.

In every stste but Florida you have a duty to retreat.

That is your opinion until I hear that from the defendant. Hoodie if she comes forward and claims what you and Spider claim she's claiming then I will be right there with you 2 on murder, but I haven't heard that yet. That doesn't sound like a reasonable explanation to me either and I wouldn't believe her story and since I would assume she's lying to cover up something I would find her guilty of murder in that case.

What does sound like a reasonable explanation to me is that she was trying to enter what she thought was her apartment (still outside the apartment) when the man inside opened the door and startled her she pulled out her revolver and shot him thinking that he was inside her apartment. Only after she shot him did she realize that he was not inside her apartment but rather inside his own apartment. That's manslaughter in my opinion. That's the story that I heard originally and it makes the most sense to me, but that's only my opinion, I could be wrong.

False

If you point a gun at someone and purposefully shoot them, that is evidence of an intent to kill.  In no situation is "I intentionally shot this person but I didn't mean for them to die" a valid defense against a murder charge.

Now, what could be a valid defense against a murder charge is, "I shot this person who had invaded my home," as you would be claiming self-defense under a castle doctrine (or something similar).  But her claim that she believed the apartment was hers is not remotely credible; no reasonable person would believe that.  So there is no self-defense argument, which means manslaughter should be out of the window.  The reason why she is being charged with manslaughter instead of murder is that the prosecution is choosing to accept her laughable "wrong apartment" story, which makes the homicide merely negligent instead of malicious.  It's nice to be a cop.

It was the first version released to the press by leaks from unnamed DPD "sources."

That story had to be changed because it became clear that when Jean was shot, he was well inside the apartment, far away from the door.  She shot him from "across the room."

rather than sit in jail like anyone else.  the dallas taxpayers continue to pay her salary. 

I'm not sure if she was still being paid or not, I have not seen either way. She is fired now though.

Wow .... the process is working huh? Imagine that. I can't believe the whole country didn't burn down on day one before any facts came out and yet the process is still working. 

finally.

I don't think he was considered "black enough" for the BLM movement to care about.

 :o

With the state of affairs in Chicago and Baltimore it's more like "NO LIVES MATTER".

So I guess you weren't paying attention earlier in this thread when Hoodie pointed out that 9 people were arrested for protesting the lack of police action regarding his death (https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/dallas/article218612845.html), because that sounds like "caring" to me.

Read your own article you are quoting.  This wasn't a BLM protest, it was less than 100 people (looks like about a total of 50 from the pick), and was made up partly of family members.  What CF was saying, and what I was replying to, was that it wasn't like other BLM protests were there are THOUSANDS of people rioting, resulting in hundreds of armed police and militia to try and keep the peace.

Ya know Spider you don't have to inject your extreme left viewpoint on every single post.  ;)

Your standard for what is and is not a "BLM protest" is rather unclear, as I'm sure there were people affiliated with "the BLM movement" that participated.

But more importantly, I don't really understand the point you were trying to make.  Are you saying that you believe BLM is less active than they should be?

The officer has been indicted on murder and manslaughter charges.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/dallas-officer-who-shot-man-in-his-own-apartment-indicted-on-manslaughter-charge/ar-BBQjH59?ocid=spartanntp

Most interesting part is the DA only asked for manslaughter, but the grand jury saw it for what it was murder.  It is extremely rare for a grand jury to indicate on more serious charges than what the DA requests.

Two months ago when she was arrested by the Texas Rangers, the Rangers charged her with manslaughter.  When there were complaints about that the DA made the excuse that it wasn't their office that filed the charge, but that it was done by the Rangers.  So it seems when the DA's office presented it to the grand jury they must have argued to the grand jury for the more severe charge.

nope.  da asked for manslaughter but told the grand jury they could indict her on stronger or weaker charges. 

I think this indictment both helps and hurts the prosecution.

1. The indictment hurts the prosecution because, mainly, I don't think they'll prove murder. From what I've read the DA was asking for manslaughter. If the DA is hoping for the lesser charge, that action betrays a lack of confidence in the evidence to prove the elements of murder, and/or a lack of desire to prosecute based on the evidence at hand. As far as I understand the Texas system, it rewards prosecutors who push the limits of evidence and win nonetheless, so, I doubt the second inference is likely: it's therefore probably the first, unless I'm missing some context. We have seen many a high profile murder case fizzle out in the last few years: George Zimmerman, Casey Anthony, Michael Slager, etc, where, at first, the evidence appeared overwhelmingly in favor of the prosecution. Here, from the outset, it does not appear so overwhelming, thus, it would give me pause, as the prosecutor, before I proceeded on the murder charge.

2. However, it helps the prosecution because they can always just ask for a lesser-included jury charge at the end of the trial (or at whatever point is proper under Texas law if it's not like SC law, where jury charges come last). A lesser-included charge is one which has similar elements to the charge at trial, but merely lacks one or two which makes it a lesser crime. Example: larceny (a taking of someone else's goods with the intent to permanently deprive the victim thereof) vs robbery (the taking of someone else's goods with or by force with the intent to permanently deprive the victim thereof) which I hope you can clearly see one is just a lesser "flavor" of the other, as it lacks the element of force.

I would be very cautious as a prosecutor here: when you're doing this, you're undermining your police force's confidence in you (the thin blue line/stick together mentality). You work with these people. Yes, they're human, they make mistakes, and they should be held to the same standard, but, as a prosecutor, no matter what happens in this trial, you're still going to have to wake up the day after the verdict comes down and work again with these people. If they don't trust you, especially if the police are politically powerful in your jurisdiction (they're not where I've worked in SC, so, meh) you won't be able to get your job done. You may find yourself on the outs at your job. Worse, if you lose your prosecutorial job, and become a defense attorney, (bc that's what good ex-prosecutors tend to do) they may hate you, and may give you no deals, (which, let's face it, defense attorneys rely on in a lot of cases) or request specific harsh prosecution of your people. A *lot* - I wish to emphasize this point - of bad outcomes can result from prosecuting a police officer, which is why, IMO, it often seems like prosecutors and the like are so ginger in their prosecution. I wish these folks good luck in whatever they end up doing, and hopefully justice (tinged with mercy) prevails.

I disagree with your first paragraph because I agree with your third paragraph.  The evidence supports murder.  The DA choose manslughter because of the blue line.  Reverse the participatans and this becomes a case where the DA gets a lot a more aggressive to set an example that immigrant murders can’t get away with coming into the home of LEOs and commit murder.  probably asking for the death penalty.

I thought the Rangers were the ones that made it a manslaughter case. I thought they were the ones who arrested her?

Rangers arrested her but I don’t think the DA has to follow that and can charge them as they feel free. 

But that isn’t really the point.  Point is neither the DA nor the rangers have a vigorous desire for justice for the victims but rather are motivated to be merciful towards the defendant.  This is the norm in most cases when a cop kills or beats up a civilian.  OTOH if someone kills a cop it is all about justice regardless of circumstances.

What are the risks of charging it as murder or manslaughter and let the jury decide?

Mainly embarrassment and the possible end of your career if you either fail or succeed.

Cop says she thought was in her own apartment during the 911 call.  I believe her.  But the 911 call also makes it very very clear that she was very  concerned about losing her job or being punished.  At first she shows little to no remorse for shooting an innocent person, it is only after she realizes that if he dies she will be even more fucked that she seems concerned that he lives. 

The trial of Ms. Guyger started yesterday, and is the main case being covered by Court TV if anyone wants to watch.  One item I heard yesterday in the opening statement by the defense was that the reason she was able to get into the apartment was due to the plate on the receiving part of the door frame sticking out a little so that the door didn't fully close automatically.  If this is proven to be correct, then that clears up some uncertainty about what initially happened, and how she was able to get in.

Claims to have performed CPR.  Yet no blood on her uniform. 

She probably stood over him laughing, calling him n***** and masturbating.

Feel better?

Is that n***** with an "ER" or and "GA". The details matter...

No.

It is extremely obvious that even after she shoot him, she a callous disregard for his well-being and was solely concerned about the impact on her own career.

Are you suggesting she should be convicted of murder because of that?

She should be convicted for murder for entering an innocent man's apartment and killing him in cold blood.

The rest is just adding callous insult to injury.

Not for that specifically.  But this
Being she initially claimed to perform CPR, the fact that she didn’t calls into question the veracity of all of her other claims.

The fact she made no effort to save him is evidence that she has a disregard for the life of civilians.  And that disregard could be evidence that when she arrived at the apartment rather than wait outside the apartment, call for back up and arrest the intruder as her training mandated, she choose to enter the apartment with the intent to kill the intruder, and that is murder.

She must have put something between the body and her hands to keep the blood off, because while she was on her phone with 911, and while performing CPR, she admittedly managed to send two texts to her sexting buddy.   ::)

Does CPR help bullet holes ? i'm just wondering here how much that would help to begin with.

In this particular case it wouldn't have because she used hollow point bullets and there was major damage to arteries, however she DID NOT know the extent of the damage, which she admitted on the stand.  But to answer your question CPR could save a persons life even with bullet holes.  If your able to keep oxygen going to the brain until a person can get to a hospital it can be the difference between life and death.

guilty of murder.

I was a bit surprised she was found guilty of murder since the jury also had the option of manslaughter, I thought she was guilty of manslaughter.

For murder the sentence range is 5 - 99 years, whereas manslaughter I believe is 2 1/2 - 20 years.

I didn't realize in Texas that the jury also sets the sentence, so they will be back in court with the prosecution and defense arguing to the jury what her actual sentence will be.

I'm not surprised by the verdict. The guy was in his home. Fuck her.

Damn son, you're quite personally vested in the outcome. Try to relax, you'll live longer, LMAO........

The speed in which they concluded it was murder, suggests it won’t be a light sentence. 

Ten years.  Should have been 20, but still more than most cops get for murdering unarmed civilians.

I think this was a fair sentence.  IMO it wasn't done maliciously, but was rather a series of events that had any one not happened this murder would not have occurred.  Ultimately she "fucked up", to use her words, and she was responsible for Botham's death.

It will be interesting to see how much time she actually does.  I didn't pay enough attention to the case to know if it was mandatory 10 years or if she can get time off for good behavior, early parole, or "gain time" as it was known back in the day in Florida. 

That is what I am concerned with.  If she actually serves 10 years it is pretty short for murder, but I would not be shocked if she is out on parole in 3. 

I think the sentence is fair.  I hope that she behaves well, grows from this, gets out early, and becomes a better person for it.

Seeing her embrace the brother was pretty heartbreaking.

I will be interested to see if she is put in a prison with others convicted of murder and violent offenders (where she belongs) or is sent to a minimum security prison with nonviolent offenders.

I don't think they put former police officers in genpop...too hard to keep them safe.  A special situation is fair for someone in her position.

I'm usually kind of a hardass, but this story put a lump in my throat.   There were no winners here.  Just horrible heartache for all involved. 

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2019/10/02/two-stunning-hugs-end-amber-guygers-trial-merciful-note/

I thought I read somewhere that she would be eligible for parole after 7, but I really haven't been reading too much so take that with a grain of salt.

when the sheephounds can tell the sheep apart from the wolves .. this is what happens unfortunately

She probably won't live long enough to see her parole hearing.   If there's one group of people that gets targeted for violence more often in prisons than child molesters, it's former police officers.

Well as Hoodie already alluded to she's probably not going to a maximum security prison. She's going to sent to a non violent offenders prison. She's gonna be pretty safe there.

The crime was MURDER!  She belongs in a max security prison, not in prison with non-violent offenders. 

The more I think about it, the more I conclude that her thinking it was her own apartment is totally IRRELEVANT!!!

Let us assume for a moment, it was her apartment.  Let us assume for a moment there was an actual intruder.  Let us assume she arrives at her own apartment and before entering realizes that someone is burglarizing her apartment.   

The law is clear on what to do in this case.  Don't enter.  Take cover.  Call for backup.  Even if it had been her own apartment it what she did was vigilante murder.  You are not allowed to kill someone to prevent theft of property. 

Of course, had it been an act of vigilante murder she would never have been charged.   And that is a problem. 

 

 

On the other hand she's an ex-cop. You can't ignore one fact while focusing on the other solely. Whether or not she deserves to be in a max security prison doesn't change the fact that putting her there may not be prudent.

Agreed because what she did was a violent crime. 


She still won't be safe.   Non-violent doesn't mean they all behave.   Jared the Subway guy is in a supposedly non-violent federal prison and he's gotten a beat down several times.

Ten years for murdering a man in his own home.

Ninety nine years for kicking a cop.

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article235518312.html

Definitely fair.

These stories that seem crazy almost always have more to it but its fun to pretend they are telling it all. It would be interesting to see what these records actually entail.

Mills had previously gone to prison for drug offenses, burglary, aggravated assault on a public servant and driving while intoxicated, the Herald Democrat reported. Prosecutors say this was Mills’ fifth offense of driving while intoxicated.

With that said ... I thought she may have gotten more although I didn't follow the trial. It was amazing to see how the brother responded.  Crazy how God can heal a person in the worst of times.

Former law enforcement does not go into prison general population, so even if she was in a maximum security "violent offender" prison, she would have a much easier time than most.  Her biggest problem will likely be loneliness, as I don't imagine there are many female former cops convicted of violent crimes to keep her company.

The conviction for the crime of "murder" means a jury determined that it was malicious.  She did not kill him by accident.

In other words, the jury did not buy her obviously, laughably BS story that she believed she was in her own apartment.  If they had, she would have gotten manslaughter.

You really can't do this.  It's not fair and it's not healthy.

Sure, there are stupid cases where people are over-prosecuted or under-prosecuted.  But we should want what is just in each case, independent of some other bad ruling.

Maybe or maybe they concluded as I have, even if it had been her own apartment what she did was vigilante murder. 

Based o what I have learned from trial accounts, I believe she sincerely believed that she was at her own apartment and that she was being a victim of burglary.  She choose rather than call for backup and arrest the thief to execute him instead.

The jury also only gave her 10 years for murder. And the jury was composed of mostly minorities. Therefore, my conclusion is that they did buy her story. The public pressure and backlash forced their hand to convict on murder over manslaughter. However, they made up for it with the lighter sentence.

So if the jury didn't believe her story, what crime do you think they would have convicted her of?

It's entirely possible that they gave her a light sentence for murder because she is a young woman who was crying a lot.

I'm not exactly sure you are correct. In Texas the castle doctrine doesn't require any of that.

The Texas castle doctrine is NOT an absolute right to kill any and all intruders.  It creates a presumption that if you kill some in your own home that you acted reasonable and in self defense.  It shifts the burden from the defendant to prove self-defense to the prosecution to disprove that it was not self-defense.  For example if you were to come home and saw your next door neighbors 12 year-old kid had broken into your house to play with your XBox for the 6th time this month and rather than call him mom you shot him and asserted the castle doctrine.  The prosecutor would have to prove you knew he wasn’t a threat and therefore you acted unreasonable.  And the prosecutor would have little trouble doing that.  The castle doctrine only creates a presumption. 

Here is where being a cop may have hurt her.  There is a very specific procedure she was trained to follow in this situation.  She didn’t follow it.  A regular person might have been able to assert a credible “i was scared and had no idea what to do” defense.  She was trained in what to do and ignored her training.

Well, not exactly.  The conviction for murder means she intended to kill the person she shot at, that's murder (not manslaughter) under Texas law.  She testified that when she shot the victim she intended to kill him, so actually the jury did believe her story, that's why she was found guilty of murder.

The jury then took into account all the circumstances in the case and sentenced her to ten years, which is in the range available for someone convicted of murder.  There is a reason there is a range of sentances, if you don't agree with it fine; but a racially balanced jury that listened to all the testimony found it to be the right sentence.

I think a big problem with people complaining over the sentence is that they wanted Amber Guyger to pay for killings that were done by other police officers who were never tried or convicted for their deeds.  IMO the jury rightly did not do that.

I didn't know that. I retract my earlier statement, haha.

That is exactly what I said.  It is presumed that deadly force is reasonable.  This shifts the burden to the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your use of deadly force was unreasonable.  If it occurs outside your home the defendant has the burden to prove that the use of deadly force was reasonable under the circumstances.

You said that the law was clear. It is  clear, use of  deadly force is presumed justified.  If you meant her work policy is clear that is another subject and I am fuzzy if that would trump the castle doctrine when off duty.

I was in the process of changing that post. I misread and posted quickly.

The law also says you are presumed innocent.  That is the starting point, everyone is innocent unless there is sufficient evidence to say beyond a reasonable doubt they are guilty.

Under the Castle doctrine it is presumed that you acted reasonable in using deadly force against an intruder.  

The jury either rejected the castle defense in its entirety because it wasn’t her home or decided her actions were unreasonable even if it had been her apartment or maybe both.  

If I had been on the jury I would have rejected the castle doctrine for the latter reason.  Spider would have rejected it for the former reason.  

Incorrect.  Guyger has maintained from the beginning that she intentionally (i.e. not accidentally) shot him, and she was initially charged with manslaughter, not murder; if what you are saying were true, her admission to intentionally shooting him would make manslaughter an impossible charge.  ("I intentionally shot him but didn't mean for him to die" is not a valid defense in a homicide case, so she couldn't have been making that argument, either.)

However, if the jury believed that she really thought she was in her own apartment, then she "recklessly caused the death of another person" with her mistake, which would result in a conviction for manslaughter.

I find it rather bizarre that you guys are still making excuses for this scumbag, who killed an innocent man in his own home, after she was just convicted of murder.  The jury convicted her almost immediately.  Stop trying to pretend that her transparent lie of an excuse earns her sympathy.  She's yet another cop who thinks they can just kill people for no reason; she's just dumber than most of them.

So just to be clear, is it your opinion that she purposely went to his apartment instead of hers just to shoot and kill him?

Yes.


Her frequent, transparently ridiculous lies offered as excuses reinforce my belief that she is a cold-blooded killer, not someone who made a terrible mistake.

#1 I'm not incorrect.  It's not up to Amber Guyger to determine what she is charged with, that's the prosecutors job.  Your argument is with the prosecutors office not me, as to why manslaughter was included as a possible charge.

#2 If the jury wrongly (IMO) thought the Castle Doctrine applied then it possibly could be manslaughter, or she could have possibly been found innocent.

#3 I'm not making excuses for her, from the beginning I thought she was guilty of some crime, and should be held accountable.  But, unlike you I don't think she purposely went to the wrong door, that just happened not to completely close, and purposely entered so she could murder any possible occupants.

I just read on Fox News that the main witness against the Dallas cop has been shot and killed. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Texas.

 :P

I am saying that your interpretation of Texas law is incorrect.

The prosecutor ostensibly understands how the law works, and if your interpretation of the law - that intentionally shooting him is defined as murder - were correct, the fact that she has stated from the beginning that she intentionally shot him would have made a manslaughter charge impossible.  And I'm not only talking about the prosecutor; the jury was also instructed that manslaughter was an option, but that wouldn't have happened if killing someone with an intentional gunshot were defined as murder as you claim.  No one, not even Guyger, disputes that she shot him on purpose.

According to the definition you gave earlier ("she intended to kill the person she shot at"), even if it actually was her home and she admitted to shooting him intentionally, it could not be manslaughter and would have to be either "murder" or "not guilty."  Your interpretation of manslaughter is wrong.

They convicted her of murder because they did not buy her story.

I think that she went upstairs to straighten out the guy making noise in the apartment directly above her when she was trying to sleep after a long shift, and things got out of hand is the least implausible explanation.  "I went into the wrong apartment because I parked somewhere different today, I have multiple contradictory explanations for how I got in the automatically-locking and self-closing door, I shot the guy who was there, then I had to go outside and look at the apartment number to realize it wasn't my own place" is insultingly stupid.

You testify against the mob, this is what happens. 

Let me add that I do think there is another possibility, though I think it's less likely than the "angry neighbor" explanation:

Guyger went to the wrong apartment which, against all odds, happened to be ajar.  She went in, noticed a guy and immediately shot him in the dark.  When she turned on the lights, she instantly realized that she was in the wrong apartment and that she was very likely to get fired, if not imprisoned.  And so instead of trying to save his life, she started working on lies to improve her story... acting on the phone with 911 like she just discovered she's not in her own apartment, figuring out what's the "best" story for her to have entered the apartment, etc.  (You know, the standard stuff police do when they have unjustly brutalized a civilian.)  Unfortunately for her, she was really dumb about it and her story was not credible.

Ironically, had she went with the "angry neighbor" story, she would almost certainly be a free woman today and have kept her job.

Another white Texas cop murders AA in own home.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/12/us/fort-worth-police-shooting/index.html

There I fixed it for you so you don't look like a race baiting liberal nutjob.

I don't see color!

Unless it's people receiving welfare or murder victims in Chicago.  Then I see color all the time.

Stating the facts, is your version of being a nut job. 

So let's clarify the details:

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article236067328.html

28-year-old Atatiana Jefferson was at home playing video games with her 8-year-old nephew.  A neighbor saw that the front door was open (with the screen door closed, and lights on in the house) late at night, which was unusual, so he called a non-emergency number for a welfare check.  Police were dispatched, but treated the call like a burglary instead of a welfare check, silently creeping around the house with their flashlights.  Ms. Jefferson thought she heard a prowler, and got up to check.  The police officer saw a silhouette pass by a window, yelled “Put your hands up! Show me your hands!” (without identifying himself as police), and shot her less than one second later.

Fort Worth police later reported that they found a weapon in her home.  In Texas.  She was no angel, I'm sure.

The police in our country are broken.  I'm not sure if it's even possible to fix it in our lifetimes.  Any person of color who calls the police is potentially sending in a hit on whomever they are calling about.

I feel terrible for the neighbor  but they never should have involved police in this.

In my suburban town police do multiple welfare checks, suspicious activities calls every day.  Nobody gets shot.  This wasn't the neighbors fault.  Blaming the neighbor goes completely against "see something, say something".  Which should not include "BBQing while black"

I disagree. If the door is open the police should investigate. Obviously none of us know the whole story yet but in no case should an innocent person be shot.

Sadly, for many in this country, calling the police for help is more dangerous than whatever you may need help from.  Police have been trained to shoot first and blame the victim later.

While this new police story sucks, I find the circumstances to be very different than the previous.  

I don't feel that a murder charge is justified in this case.  (assuming that other details don't arise)

The only details that could make this anything other than murder is if the victim knew that the intruders were LEO rather than burglers AND she was pointing the gun at the officer AND the officer couldn't take cover. 

She had a right to defend her home so unless she knew they were police she had every right to point a gun at intruders.

If there were flashing blue lights she could see, he was wearing a shirt with reflective letters saying "Police" and she was pointing the gun directly at him or someone else, than he has s self-defense argument.

^ I don't agree.

I don't believe that the facts, as I understand them, lend to an act of malice.

I don't believe that the police officer entered this person's home, trying to kill the person that lived there.  This seems like poor police work, a system of racial injustice that caused this officer to feel scared and spooked when it wasn't justified, but not a case of a cold-blooded killer.

This stuff doesn't happen in a vaccuum, though, so it's hard to look at each case individually.  White cops killing black people unjustly is far too common.  But in this case, the guy was a bad cop -- not a murderer.

Malice. is not sn element of 2nd degree murder, he intended to kill.  He absolutely meets the prima facie elements of murder.  His defense rests on creating a self defense argument.

^ Right.

He thought she was a danger to him.  He likely mistook her as threat to his life.  Wrongfully.  It doesn't make it OK, and there need to be consequences, but putting this guy in jail for murder isn't justice, in my opinion.

Charge him with murder, offer a voluntary manslaughter plea.

Ironically, I think the murder charge is a cop-out in this case.  I think they could reasonably get manslaughter, but there is 0.0% chance of getting a murder conviction.  This seems like theater.

Murder will be a hard conviction but it is the correct charge.  With all non-police defendants the SOP is charge with the most server conceivable charge and then offer a plea deal for what you can actually get a conviction for.  Unlike with Guyger where they undercharged.  Only police get undercharged everyone else gets over charged and then settle for less.  Nice to see that this cop isn't getting special treatment.  If he is charged with only manslaughter, DA can't offer a plea of manslaughter but something less.

But there could be some theater going on.  If the stance of the department is the cop was following standard procedure and was defending himself then their will be riots and the demands the police chief be fired.  If the stance of the department is the cop's behavior deviated so far from SOP to consider his actions murder than the department and leadership are not at fault. 

There was a screen door from what I understand. Nosy neighbors caused this. I open my doors and windows to get fresh air all the time.

And if your neighbors think something is amiss at your home and do contact the police, the police have an obligation to investigate without going into Seal Team 6 assault mode. 

My neighbors know better, just as I wouldn't call the police either.

If we are going to blame the neighbor rather than the police than our entire police system is beyond broken.  Police have an obligation to investigate without executing everyone they encounter. 

I agree with that completely. I'm just saying they never should have been there.

I remember being told as a child that if you see something suspicious let a police officer know, they are trained to investigate and figure out if it is something or nothing.  I was always taught to turn to the police for help. 

I know when I lived in an apartment building when I would hear screaming from adjacent apartments, I would struggle with the question, "should I contact the police?"  If all that was occurring was yelling than involving the police was unnecessary, but at the same time I didn't want to find out after the fact that it was a violent domestic dispute and I did nothing. 

Most of the time I did not call the police.  One time I heard female screams of "Please Stop! you are hurting me" and did call the police. Turns out he was going thru their photo album and cutting in half the pictures not assaulting her.  Nevertheless, I feel I did the right thing in calling the police.  A month later he moved out. 

 

Screaming is worlds apart from someone getting fresh air into the house.

This discussion is crazy.

You should be able to call a non-emergency number for police assistance AT ANY TIME, FOR ANY REASON without fear that the police might come and kill someone.

The former officer is refusing to cooperate into the inquiry.  He is free on bail after spending 3 hours and 15 minutes in custody.

Absolutely.  Nobody is saying anything as otherwise.

I see this more akin to gross medical malpractice that results in death, rather than murder.  Lose your job, be civilly liable, etc ... but you wouldn't put a doctor in prison for accidentally killing someone by being negligent.

Doctors can be charged with murder for malpractice even if they didn’t intend to kill the victim.  It occurs extremely rarely, because it requires the doctor to not just negligent but to have a reckless disregard for the life of the patient.  

I would say in this case the cop wasn’t just negligent in his duties, but had a reckless disregard for the safety of the resident of the home.  

Also the issue isn't intent.  Aaron Dean intended to kill Atatiana Jefferson.  Just like Amber Guyger intended to kill Botham Jean.  The issue in both cases is not did the shooter intent to kill the victim but if killing was justified (self defense, defense of others, castle defense, etc)

I don't think you can argue the killing was justified.  But you can argue that it was a mistake made by an officer on duty, with a reason to be there.  With Guyger, I think there's enough evidence to suggest that there were fishy circumstances.  I don't see the two the same at all.

It's like, if I'm hunting and I'm startled by you walking out of the bushes, I might shoot you, thinking you're a bear trying to attack me.  I'd be wrong.  But that's not murder, in my opinion.

I agree with that.  An unjustified killing of another is murder. 

 
Now, you are justifying it.  Basically the only justification is self defense.


They are not the exact same.  But I believe Guyger's version of the events and still consider what she did murder.  She intended to kill him and was not justified in doing so. 


That would likely get you manslaughter. Which I think is ultimately what he will be convicted of.  However, in that case you are intending to kill a bear not a human.