Dallas cop shoots man in own apartment

[pamak]

Yup.

Use of force case law applies to everyone in the USA, not just the police. All use of force must be considered by the perception of the user at the time the force is used.

In cases of apparent self-defense arrests are seldom made. You do the investigation and let Grand Juries sort out who did what to whom. And civilians shoot a lot more criminals than the police. About six a day in the USA, on average, although there's no central stats. But six a day is a reasonable median estimate.

This one is strange because of the 'wrong apartment' aspect. But what what I'm seeing from the few facts available, there's nothing dynamic suggesting that she's lying.

I was very dubious at first, but given that the Rangers obtained a warrant without breaking from her version of events it is looking more like Human error to me.

If she had known the subject or some other gaping hole was found in her story, the Rangers would have asked for a murder charge.

It boils down to two possibilities, based on the facts known at present: she shot down a random tenant in her apartment building

or

she went to the wrong apartment thinking she was going home.

No one can speak on behalf of the whole US! Every state has its own system, and the concept of involuntary manslaughter has often been used to charge people in many other states for deaths that resulted even when the perpetrator did not intend to kill the victim (although in this case there was a clear intent to pull the trigger which makes it more like voluntary manslaughter).


The perception of the user is not a blank cheque to justify any action, Such perception must STILL be reasonable!
Right now, th attempt to exonerate the officer based on the available information (which by the way STILL mentions manslaughter charges) shows a clear bias in favor of the cop. Her story is very hard to swallow, which means that one can challenge her perception as quite unreasonable. By the way, among other things that are circulating in internet are videos from the neighbors in the apartment complex which show that the doors have a sure-slam mechanism.

Sure, such door can still be ajar, but if the above information is true, we have the accumulation of improbable events one after another in a single story. So, not only the cop somehow got confused regarding the location of her apartment, but she also found a sure-slam door that was left open at night.

In addition, we still do not know what the prosecutor has gathered so far, and if he has gathered information from other witnesses that contradict her story. Notice also that based on what we DO know, the prosecutor had a spirited conversation with the Rangers after they charged the cop with manslaughter. So, when AJR dismisses such information and jumps to the conclusion that "there is nothing dynamic suggesting that she is lying" expresses a personal wish rather than an opinion based on known facts!

Finally, what we can say for sure based on the facts we have is that this person should get out of the police force! Anybody who hopes that an appeal may justify her, is just a person who is not interested in having a competent police force! After this event, a person with the slightest sense of shame resigns and surrenders his/her badge and weapon instead of trying to challenge the decision...

[pamak]

and speaking about the law in the US in general, here is some information which seems to be quite close to the current example (assuming the best scenario for the cop)

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwe...8&context=jclc

Page 833

I turn now to another situation. Suppose the defendant shoots and kills the victim, believing that the victim was about to shoot and kill him. The defendant's belief, though genuinely held, is unreasonable. Had this mistaken belief been reasonable, the defendant would be able to raise a complete, or "perfect," claim of self-defense. Under the tradi-tional provocation rule, the hypothetical defendant would be convicted of murder because he had the intent to kill and could not claim to have been aroused by the "heat ofpassion." Recognizing this "as an indefen- sible position"'128 the Code has adopted a version of the "imperfect" right ofself-defense. The standard version, as enacted in Illinois, focuses attention on the defendant's sincere, but unreasonable belief: "A person who intentionally or knowingly kills an individual commits voluntary manslaughter if at the time of the killing he believes the circumstances to be such that, if they existed, would justify or exonerate the killing

..,but his belief is unreasonable."' 129
The Code treatment of the im-perfect defense is preferable to this version simply because it is more precise. It allows for a manslaughter conviction in the situation discussed above, but specifies that the defendant could be guilty of crimi-nal homicide if his belief was formed recklessly or negligently. 30
...

Occasionally a defendant who raises a defense of self-defense to a charge of murder is convicted of manslaughter ... .The difference between a justified killing under self- defense and the one not justified, amounting to voluntary manslaughter, is that in the former instance the belief that the use of force is necessary is reasonable under the cir- cumstances, and in the latter, the belief is unreasonable.

[Surrey]

Yup.

Use of force case law applies to everyone in the USA, not just the police. All use of force must be considered by the perception of the user at the time the force is used.

In cases of apparent self-defense arrests are seldom made. You do the investigation and let Grand Juries sort out who did what to whom. And civilians shoot a lot more criminals than the police. About six a day in the USA, on average, although there's no central stats. But six a day is a reasonable median estimate.

This one is strange because of the 'wrong apartment' aspect. But what what I'm seeing from the few facts available, there's nothing dynamic suggesting that she's lying.

I was very dubious at first, but given that the Rangers obtained a warrant without breaking from her version of events it is looking more like Human error to me.

If she had known the subject or some other gaping hole was found in her story, the Rangers would have asked for a murder charge.

It boils down to two possibilities, based on the facts known at present: she shot down a random tenant in her apartment building

or

she went to the wrong apartment thinking she was going home.

I haven’t seen any evidence that Jean had a criminal record nor that he acted criminally on the night in question. Fom his point of view he was woken by a crazy women with a gun trying to break into his apartment.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

I haven’t seen any evidence that Jean had a criminal record nor that he acted criminally on the night in question. Fom his point of view he was woken by a crazy women with a gun trying to break into his apartment.

In the USA, use of force is based upon the user's perception at the time the force was employed.

It doesn't matter how you describe the incident, that is going to be the key aspect of this case. Unless the prosecution can show she was at that apartment for a reason other than she stated, that is going to be the base line.

And since she's charged with manslaughter and the Ranger affidavit isn't challenging her story, the odds are in her favor.

[pamak]

..and speaking about shameless cops, here is good example from their Dallas Union

https://kissdetroit.com/3882232/pres...-amber-guyger/

President Of The Dallas Police Association Slams Chief Renee Hall For Firing Amber Guyger


According to Dallas News, Michael Mata, president of the Dallas Police Association, said on Monday that he was “perturbed” by Guyger being fired and called the decision “short-sightedness and short cuts.” He also said, “Four days ago, she said she couldn’t fire her because of the investigation, and now, four days, later you can? Just be honest with the public. There is a process in place that not only affords an officer due process but allows the department to have security if and when an officer attempts to get their job back.”

The criminal process does not have to be completed in order to fire a shockingly incompetent cop. This comes by her own admission of her deadly confusion even if we accept the best case scenario.


By the way, notice how the PD Chief was lying when a few days ago was trying to argue that she could not fire Guyger

Attorney Peter Schulte told ABC 8 that her statement, doesn’t make much sense to me. I don’t know if it’s ignorance or being naive, but it doesn’t make any sense legally.”

ABC 8 explained, “The Dallas Police Department general orders do allow the chief to take action, saying, ‘The Chief of Police may circumvent all formal disciplinary procedures to render an immediate decision when it deems it necessary to preserve the integrity of the department.’” ABC 8 also stated it is “unclear” what laws Hall is referring to and “the chief can order that process to be expedited.”

[Persephone]

Former Dallas officer is found guilty of murder. It's the right finding, glad the jury came back with this.

Sentencing is next.

[pamak]

Former Dallas officer is found guilty of murder. It's the right finding, glad the jury came back with this.

Sentencing is next.

Things do change slowly, and cops start realize that they cannot just get away as easily as in the past. Anyway, I guess, her lawyers can still appeal the decision.

[Tuebor]

Things do change slowly, and cops start realize that they cannot just get away as easily as in the past. Anyway, I guess, her lawyers can still appeal the decision.

I expect an appeal. One can say the jury was stacked against her. Personally, from all that I read, what she did actually adds up to manslaughter, and not murder (where usually intent is required). Not a lawyer though so do not know for sure.

Tuebor

[pamak]

I expect an appeal. One can say the jury was stacked against her. Personally, from all that I read, what she did actually adds up to manslaughter, and not murder (where usually intent is required). Not a lawyer though so do not know for sure.

Tuebor

Juries are known to be stacked in favor of cops. And this was in Dallas!

[Persephone]

I expect an appeal. One can say the jury was stacked against her. Personally, from all that I read, what she did actually adds up to manslaughter, and not murder (where usually intent is required). Not a lawyer though so do not know for sure.

Tuebor

From what I've read on this, she didn't give the jury a choice when she admitted on the stand that she intended to kill the man. She won't receive a harsh sentence because they didn't find the murder to be racially motivated.

[pamak]

From what I've read on this, she didn't give the jury a choice when she admitted on the stand that she intended to kill the man. She won't receive a harsh sentence because they didn't find the murder to be racially motivated.

Yep!
I do not think anybody expects or wants a harsh sentence. Plus, I assume, there are protection programs in prison to secure an ex-cop like her.

[TacCovert4]

Things do change slowly, and cops start realize that they cannot just get away as easily as in the past. Anyway, I guess, her lawyers can still appeal the decision.

Well, for one, she wasn't acting as a law enforcement officer at that time.

Considering that we are held to the same higher standard 24 hours a day even when we aren't being paid, I'd say that we're very well aware of the standard. How many other jobs will your behavior off work or on vacation, including behavior that isn't criminal or even morally proscribed, result in your termination and revocation of your ability to ever get a job in that profession again?

Anyway, she was a dumbass. And as I said a long ways back in this thread, she was going to go down for this and rightfully should.

[pamak]

Well, for one, she wasn't acting as a law enforcement officer at that time.

Considering that we are held to the same higher standard 24 hours a day even when we aren't being paid, I'd say that we're very well aware of the standard. How many other jobs will your behavior off work or on vacation, including behavior that isn't criminal or even morally proscribed, result in your termination and revocation of your ability to ever get a job in that profession again?

Anyway, she was a dumbass. And as I said a long ways back in this thread, she was going to go down for this and rightfully should.

It does not matter if she was on duty or not. It is the perception that a person's profession creates that matters. And it is well known that there is a bias in the juries that favor cops when they testify. I do not question the challenges of being a cop. I just challenged the claim that somehow the jury was stacked against her. I do not see any reason to believe that this was the case.

ps. Yes, I do recall that you were critical of her action. Plus, everybody can see what everybody here said at that time about her and her actions. I said before that sometimes, it is instructive for everybody to revisit old threads and process the information and comments made there from a contemporary perspective. Then people can see when one rushes to illogical conclusions or when he makes arguments that are refuted by later developments

[TacCovert4]

From what I've read on this, she didn't give the jury a choice when she admitted on the stand that she intended to kill the man. She won't receive a harsh sentence because they didn't find the murder to be racially motivated.

Yeah, she's screwed. Dunno why she stated that she intended to kill the man. I mean Geez, I educate the general public all the time on the proper words to say if they're forced to shoot an intruder into their home. Because they're not maliciously intending to kill them, they're intending to stop their actions. There is a very real, and not just semantical, difference between the two. In the first, the only desired result is death. In the second, the desired result is surrender, though surrender through death is a possibility.

I don't see it as racially motivated either. She was a dumbass, made a host of dumbass mistakes. Comes down to the "knew or reasonably should have known that she was not defending her domicile from an intruder". Plus, she was committing a misdemeanor breaking and entering through being a dumbass. I'm good with murder, 2nd degree as I don't see malice aforethought but if she in fact said on the stand that she intended to kill the man then there was malice afoot.

Which is ultimately the difference between your three generic grades of murder. Malice Before the Murder, aka premedidation. Malice in action, aka crime of passion without premeditation. No Malice, aka manslaughter.

[TacCovert4]

It does not matter if she was on duty or not. It is the perception that a person's profession creates that matters. And it is well known that there is a bias in the juries that favor cops when they testify. I do not question the challenges of being a cop. I just challenged the claim that somehow the jury was stacked against her. I do not see any reason to believe that this was the case.

Bias in juries towards cop testimony, as compared to a truly random person, exists and has some relevance. That being that the Cop/Investigator is a more neutral party to the case at hand, that they aren't personally involved in the case. Also that the cop is to varying degrees, either above average or an actual expert in the matters to which they are testifying. A private citizen saying that someone appeared nervous might not hold as much weight as a 10 year cop saying that the subject showed xyz nervous signs that in his training and experience are indicators of criminal activity afoot.

As to Dumbass, if she did get any special credence given to her testimony, she certainly helped convict herself. Typically a jury doesn't give that bias towards a cop who is literally a party to the case as a suspect.