Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dallas cop shoots man in own apartment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Was a search carried out of Guyger’s apartment? Thinking about looking for evidence of a prior relationship.

    While it it has been denied by both Guyger and the victim’s family it would be a more logical reason for the shooting.

    Guyger’s story takes a bit of believing.
    Firstly going to the wrong flat is a bit of a stretch but ialso the claim that the door was unlocked at night adds another improbable event. Is Dallas really such a safe city that residents typically leave their front doors open at night?
    "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Surrey View Post
      Was a search carried out of Guyger’s apartment? Thinking about looking for evidence of a prior relationship.

      While it it has been denied by both Guyger and the victim’s family it would be a more logical reason for the shooting.

      Guyger’s story takes a bit of believing.
      Firstly going to the wrong flat is a bit of a stretch but ialso the claim that the door was unlocked at night adds another improbable event. Is Dallas really such a safe city that residents typically leave their front doors open at night?
      Yes, my point exactly! I am talking about the bolded (by me) part of your post.

      On top of that, the claim from Rimmer that there is nothing suspicious here because "The Rangers could have found the witnesses that DPD quoted to be untruthful, uncredible, etc." does not make sense. One would assume that it must be the grand jury who must make such decisions, and not some investigator! On top of that, I find difficult to believe how an investigator at such an early stage can so easily dismiss two independent witnesses who claim that they heard "let me in" before the shooting! And on top of that we have the DA of the county giving a clear sign that she had a spirited conversation about the manslaughter charges. So, on the one hand we have a Dallas PD which for some reason selectively publishes information about the victim which has no bearing on the case as it has developed up until now, and on the other hand, you have evidence of witnesses who contradict the cops' story and evidence of a disagreement between the DA and the Rangers regarding the charges!
      Last edited by pamak; 14 Sep 18, 18:49.
      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

      Comment


      • I still think it something nds like a crime of passion.
        Two young attractive singles living in close proximity to each other have a relationship. For some reason that relationship brakes down and in a fit of rage she shoots him.
        Case solved.
        "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Surrey View Post
          I still think it something nds like a crime of passion.
          Two young attractive singles living in close proximity to each other have a relationship. For some reason that relationship brakes down and in a fit of rage she shoots him.
          Case solved.
          Why crime of passion?


          A more probable scenario (since their apartments were one above the other) is that the police officer downstairs had issues with noise coming from the top. Sometimes, just walking on the floor can bother the person below you. I have a friend who complained about such an issue in the condo apartment she lives.
          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment


          • Now you're just being stupid. And I'm really starting to wonder where we disagree, outside of the definition of probable cause. You quoted me stating that I thought the Dallas PD acted unprofessionally in releasing information. Probably because a PD is a bit more 'hip' to the whole media thing, and a state investigatory agency is used to and prefers to operate in relative obscurity most of the time.....but Dallas PD should have given this to the Rangers within the first couple hours and stayed out of it completely.....like all the agencies in my county do on Officer Involved Cases (not just shootings.....if it's an officer involved in a possible crime it goes to the SBI, as it should because they exist to police the police/government).

            As for the few grams of weed, meh. No one cares if it's not a pile of baggies of weed, or a bale. If they had found a key of heroin, that would have been interesting.

            As has been said repeatedly by at least two of the LEOs on the forum....she f*cked up royally. Looks like Negligent Manslaughter, though I will hold final judgement until the Rangers have explored any possible pre-planning theories against the evidence. And she's screwed in court. Irony is that all the publicity this case is getting is counterproductive as it creates an appeal defense that she was unable to receive a fair trial....the primary reason I'm against releasing information in any case.
            Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

            Comment


            • Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
              Now you're just being stupid. And I'm really starting to wonder where we disagree, outside of the definition of probable cause. You quoted me stating that I thought the Dallas PD acted unprofessionally in releasing information. Probably because a PD is a bit more 'hip' to the whole media thing, and a state investigatory agency is used to and prefers to operate in relative obscurity most of the time.....but Dallas PD should have given this to the Rangers within the first couple hours and stayed out of it completely.....like all the agencies in my county do on Officer Involved Cases (not just shootings.....if it's an officer involved in a possible crime it goes to the SBI, as it should because they exist to police the police/government).

              As for the few grams of weed, meh. No one cares if it's not a pile of baggies of weed, or a bale. If they had found a key of heroin, that would have been interesting.

              As has been said repeatedly by at least two of the LEOs on the forum....she f*cked up royally. Looks like Negligent Manslaughter, though I will hold final judgement until the Rangers have explored any possible pre-planning theories against the evidence. And she's screwed in court. Irony is that all the publicity this case is getting is counterproductive as it creates an appeal defense that she was unable to receive a fair trial....the primary reason I'm against releasing information in any case.
              Bold mine

              OHH really? You make the claim that nobody in a jury will care about the marijuana? How do you know when only ONE person who MAY care about such things in a jury may be enough for the defense? And if nobody cares why then did they decide to release such information?

              Where we disagree is that what you call "unprofessional" I call it not just unprofessional but suspicious attempt to try to smear the victim! It is hard to explain their behavior as coming from some need to please the "media" when they release information for which "nobody cares," as you say while they did not release much more relevant information such as the name of the officer that was involved in the incident (until the social media started circulating her name) and when they did not release any findings from an investigation in HER apartment.

              Ad no, I did not see from two LEOs that she "f*cked up royally when one of the former LEOs here says that

              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer
              ...
              I give her a 50-50 chance of walking away from this based on the core story and the fact the Rangers delayed getting a warrant, and then went with manslaughter.


              If Rimmer (I assume he is the one LEO you are referring to) says that she has 50-50 chances to walk away without even being convicted for "manslaughter," well obviously he does not see this as a royal "f*ck up!

              OR alternatively,

              If he DOES see it as a royal "F*ck up and STILL believes that a cop like herself who royally f*cked up STILL has a 50-50 chance to walk away from what she did, then there is something wrong with the system!

              And such comments were the only ones I saw from former LEOs in this thread up until your first intervention in the NINTH page of this thread and only AFTER I challenged some of Rimmer's comments!
              Last edited by pamak; 14 Sep 18, 20:34.
              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

              Comment


              • Well, it is just fodder for this site:

                http://killedbypolice.net/

                This site is run by the Solidarity Network / International Solidarity Movement, a radical Leftist, anarchist group who uses it to rabble rouse the disaffected.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                  Was a search carried out of Guyger’s apartment? Thinking about looking for evidence of a prior relationship.

                  While it it has been denied by both Guyger and the victim’s family it would be a more logical reason for the shooting.

                  Guyger’s story takes a bit of believing.
                  Firstly going to the wrong flat is a bit of a stretch but ialso the claim that the door was unlocked at night adds another improbable event. Is Dallas really such a safe city that residents typically leave their front doors open at night?
                  I don't know if her apt was searched; probably not. Barring evidence to the contrary, I wouldn't see a door ajar as dynamic evidence.

                  Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                  I still think it something nds like a crime of passion.
                  Two young attractive singles living in close proximity to each other have a relationship. For some reason that relationship brakes down and in a fit of rage she shoots him.
                  Case solved.
                  Actually, she's charged with manslaughter. The Prosecution now has to prove she acted recklessly. Given that the Ranger warrant affidavit noted she gave a verbal warning means this will only go past the Grand Jury if the DA really pushes it.

                  Given that a home intruder is considered a deadly threat, and she issued a verbal warning, which is above & beyond what the law requires, means that the DA will have to convince 12 jurors that she is actively lying.

                  The defense just has to convince one juror that after a 12 hour shift in a series of twelve hour shifts, she went to the wrong door in a building with little personality.

                  Keep in mind that females are more likely to be acquitted than males. She is small and fragile in appearance, which will also work in her favor.
                  Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                    Now you're just being stupid. And I'm really starting to wonder where we disagree, outside of the definition of probable cause. You quoted me stating that I thought the Dallas PD acted unprofessionally in releasing information. Probably because a PD is a bit more 'hip' to the whole media thing, and a state investigatory agency is used to and prefers to operate in relative obscurity most of the time.....but Dallas PD should have given this to the Rangers within the first couple hours and stayed out of it completely.....like all the agencies in my county do on Officer Involved Cases (not just shootings.....if it's an officer involved in a possible crime it goes to the SBI, as it should because they exist to police the police/government).
                    The Rangers do not exist to police the police. They offer investigative support, and can act as a unbiased investigative agency.

                    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                    As for the few grams of weed, meh. No one cares if it's not a pile of baggies of weed, or a bale. If they had found a key of heroin, that would have been interesting.
                    In Texas, it is indeed a big deal.

                    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                    As has been said repeatedly by at least two of the LEOs on the forum....she f*cked up royally. Looks like Negligent Manslaughter, though I will hold final judgement until the Rangers have explored any possible pre-planning theories against the evidence. And she's screwed in court. Irony is that all the publicity this case is getting is counterproductive as it creates an appeal defense that she was unable to receive a fair trial....the primary reason I'm against releasing information in any case.
                    She's been charged with manslaughter.

                    PC 19.04 (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.

                    (b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.
                    The thing about manslaughter is that it cuts the culpable mental state down to reckless, and the Ranger affidavit notes a verbal command, which is above & beyond what is required.

                    This one may just fade away.
                    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

                      The Rangers do not exist to police the police. They offer investigative support, and can act as a unbiased investigative agency.



                      In Texas, it is indeed a big deal.



                      She's been charged with manslaughter.



                      The thing about manslaughter is that it cuts the culpable mental state down to reckless, and the Ranger affidavit notes a verbal command, which is above & beyond what is required.

                      This one may just fade away.
                      From her own statements she fired at an unidentified target when she was in a place she had no right to be. She was the Home intruder.
                      What is the penalty for manslaughter due to negligence? In the UK it can be anything from a suspended sentence to ‘life’.
                      "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Surrey View Post

                        From her own statements she fired at an unidentified target when she was in a place she had no right to be. She was the Home intruder.
                        All targets are unidentified. Are you supposed to introduce yourself first?

                        In the USA, all use of force by any person is judged solely on the perception of the user at the moment the force was used. If she believed she was in her own apartment, then her actions were not just within the law, but in fact exceeded the requirements by issuing a verbal command.

                        It will be up to the DA to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that she knew she was in the wrong apartment at the time she pulled the trigger. Failing that, she is innocent of wrongdoing.

                        Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                        What is the penalty for manslaughter due to negligence? In the UK it can be anything from a suspended sentence to ‘life’.
                        Negligence has no issue here. She was charged with Manslaughter:

                        PC 19.04 (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.

                        (b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.
                        If found guilty she can face a fine, or a sentence of two to twenty years (may be suspended or probated), or both.

                        But first she has to be found guilty. And to do that the DA must prove she knew she was in the wrong apartment.

                        I'm very surprised they went with manslaughter, as it puts a heavy burden on the prosecution.

                        The defense will ask the jury if any of them have made a mistake while physically and mentally exhausted, such as walking into a room and forgetting why they went there, or getting turned around for a moment in familiar areas, or setting a phone down and a minute later not remembering where..

                        All it takes is one juror to think "I could have made that mistake in a cookie cutter building" and she's home free.

                        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Surrey View Post

                          From her own statements she fired at an unidentified target when she was in a place she had no right to be. She was the Home intruder.
                          What is the penalty for manslaughter due to negligence? In the UK it can be anything from a suspended sentence to ‘life’.
                          You still do not get it what he says. He is saying that when a cop mistakenly comes to your apartment and kills you thinking that it was his apartment, the shooting was not reckless because the person has the right to use deadly force inside what he/she thinks is his/her apartment. This is based on the logic that a reasonable person could be "confused" after a long shift . You see if you wear the police uniform in Texas, it seems that you become officially a dumb a**, so you can argue that mistakes like entering the wrong apartment are reasonable and there is no such thing as negligence.
                          Last edited by pamak; 15 Sep 18, 05:23.
                          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

                            All targets are unidentified. Are you supposed to introduce yourself first?

                            In the USA, all use of force by any person is judged solely on the perception of the user at the moment the force was used. If she believed she was in her own apartment, then her actions were not just within the law, but in fact exceeded the requirements by issuing a verbal command.

                            It will be up to the DA to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that she knew she was in the wrong apartment at the time she pulled the trigger. Failing that, she is innocent of wrongdoing.



                            Negligence has no issue here. She was charged with Manslaughter:



                            If found guilty she can face a fine, or a sentence of two to twenty years (may be suspended or probated), or both.

                            But first she has to be found guilty. And to do that the DA must prove she knew she was in the wrong apartment.

                            I'm very surprised they went with manslaughter, as it puts a heavy burden on the prosecution.

                            The defense will ask the jury if any of them have made a mistake while physically and mentally exhausted, such as walking into a room and forgetting why they went there, or getting turned around for a moment in familiar areas, or setting a phone down and a minute later not remembering where..

                            All it takes is one juror to think "I could have made that mistake in a cookie cutter building" and she's home free.
                            Bold mine!

                            Baloney!

                            If the DA proves beyond a reasonable doubt, that she knew she was in the wrong apartment at the time she pulled the trigger, then we have a MURDER and not manslaughter!

                            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

                              All targets are unidentified. Are you supposed to introduce yourself first?

                              In the USA, all use of force by any person is judged solely on the perception of the user at the moment the force was used. If she believed she was in her own apartment, then her actions were not just within the law, but in fact exceeded the requirements by issuing a verbal command.

                              It will be up to the DA to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that she knew she was in the wrong apartment at the time she pulled the trigger. Failing that, she is innocent of wrongdoing.



                              Negligence has no issue here. She was charged with Manslaughter:



                              If found guilty she can face a fine, or a sentence of two to twenty years (may be suspended or probated), or both.

                              But first she has to be found guilty. And to do that the DA must prove she knew she was in the wrong apartment.

                              I'm very surprised they went with manslaughter, as it puts a heavy burden on the prosecution.

                              The defense will ask the jury if any of them have made a mistake while physically and mentally exhausted, such as walking into a room and forgetting why they went there, or getting turned around for a moment in familiar areas, or setting a phone down and a minute later not remembering where..

                              All it takes is one juror to think "I could have made that mistake in a cookie cutter building" and she's home free.
                              By definition if she knew where she was it would be a murder charge. Entering a strangers house illegally and shooting them must be murder even in Texas.
                              By her own admission she has been negligent and thus the charge is manslaughter. Home defence wouldn’t apply as she wasn’t in her home....
                              if she got off it could set a very bad president. Any burgler who was interrogated by the house holder could shooot them and claim that they didn’t know where they were.

                              "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                                By definition if she knew where she was it would be a murder charge. Entering a strangers house illegally and shooting them must be murder even in Texas.
                                Innocent until proven guilty, in the USA at least.

                                I admit, the choice of charges strongly favors her, but that's the facts.

                                Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                                By her own admission she has been negligent and thus the charge is manslaughter.
                                I hope you saved the receipt for your law degree. You should be able to get a refund.

                                Firstly, she is innocent until found guilty in a court of law. Secondly, I've already posted the statute in its entirety. They have to prove she acted recklessly.

                                Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                                Home defence wouldn’t apply as she wasn’t in her home....
                                It's not 'home defense'. It is 'self defense'.

                                Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                                if she got off it could set a very bad president. Any burgler who was interrogated by the house holder could shooot them and claim that they didn’t know where they were.
                                Bobo was a bad president. There are countless cases where a similar precedent exists. For example, in 1990 in Austin a man heard someone prying his door open, fired through the door, and killed a sixteen-year-old would be burglar.

                                Despite the fact the suspect had not made entry, a grand jury in the most liberal county in Texas no-billed him.

                                About 2000 people are killed each year in self defense. Ten times that number are shot but live. This case is odd, but hardly remarkable. Dallas citizens have shot and killed several more peoplev in self defense since this incident. This one made the news because it involved an off-duty police officer and an odd story.

                                Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X