Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dallas cop shoots man in own apartment

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

  • Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

    That doesn't apply when the shooter is trained in the use of lethal force and supposedly knows the laws.
    It's easy to second guess, but had she retreated and called 911 she wouldn't be going to prison and the victim would be alive.
    That's a really good point.
    I feel sorry for the woman but she made a stupid mistake and then didn't follow her training but rather made a conscious decision to kill a guy while he was sitting on his sofa (even though she thought it was hers).
    "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
    validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
    "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

    Comment


    • Originally posted by pamak View Post

      You make things up since you do not cite anything. I back up my words with links which show that claiming a mistake of fact will not save the defense if it does not appear as a reasonable mistake

      Plus, her conduct shows that she was clueless in general in executing her duties, either in the use of lethal force and in providing CPR.

      One thing the prosecutor mentioned was that her "training" was to actually first seek cover and call for back up. She did none of them

      Another thing the prosecutor mentioned was that she did not provide CPR to the victim even though she had training to do so.Texting her boyfriend about what happened became a bigger priority than giving CPR.

      Then you have her claim that the victim was coming towards her while the forensics showed a trajectory angle that does not corroborate that the victim was standing. So, it seems that the victim was still sitting on the couch when she fired her weapon.

      Yes, this was not a premeditated murder but the moment she said that she pulled the trigger with intend to kill, it was certainly what we call in CA second degree murder.

      The idea that a cop can claim any excuse to get away with any type of mistake (even a veryyyyy stupid one) is not convincing. As I said in a much older post in this thread, imagine if a cop on duty kills people by acting like a dork and getting away by saying that he was confused and tired because of a long shift. Even jurors in TX with pro-gun mentality and "castle laws" understand that such precedent is dangerous.
      So you agree with me, she should have retreated and called for either back up, or called 911. So you attack me.
      And you agree with me that she was apparently poorly trained, so you attacked me.
      Also, She did her self no favor by telling the court she pulled her weapon with the intent to kill. so you attacked me.
      Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
      Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

      Comment


      • Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

        Just to note, it's "Proof beyond a Reasonable Doubt". Shadow of a doubt is an unrealistic standard as it would include arguments to unreasonable scenarios.
        I don't think it was premeditated, but as the victim didn't physically attack her, manslaughter may be a stretch, I'm not familiar with Texas laws, but it would be more likely second degree.
        Her defense should have never allowed her to testify, as the defense can make the argument that she pulled the weapon with the intent to kill.
        It is difficult for any sane person to understand or buy into the idea that she didn't know she was in the wrong apartment on the wrong floor.
        She fits the media fed perception of a trigger happy, short fused, hot head with a badge. I really don't know if that is the case, but that is the perception.
        But this does lead to a question, are Police academy's required to teach cadets how to defuse a situation or is the training limited to seeing every exchange with another human or animal as a threat to be eliminated with lethal force?
        I fear that this has become the narrative of the press and Hollywood.
        Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
        Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

        Comment


        • Her texts will not help her at sentencing

          https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/no...cid=spartandhp
          Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
          Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
            She fits the media fed perception of a trigger happy, short fused, hot head with a badge. I really don't know if that is the case, but that is the perception.
            But this does lead to a question, are Police academy's required to teach cadets how to defuse a situation or is the training limited to seeing every exchange with another human or animal as a threat to be eliminated with lethal force?
            My father was in the police in England in the 60's. I remember watching the riots in Ferguson with him and him remarking that the local police were over armed and under trained and had no idea how to police the situation. Is there a problem with big variations in standards with some law enforcement agencies in the USA?
            "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
            validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
            "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

            Comment


            • As far as her not realizing that she was in the wrong apartment even after seeing the red doormat. I'm sure it wasn't the same furniture in the same location as in her apartment. At the least, it was felony utter cluelessness.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

                I don't think it was premeditated, but as the victim didn't physically attack her, manslaughter may be a stretch, I'm not familiar with Texas laws, but it would be more likely second degree.




                Her defense should have never allowed her to testify, as the defense can make the argument that she pulled the weapon with the intent to kill.

                I agree with that assessment as well. Without her testimony, I think that an argument could have been made for the lesser offense of manslaughter. With her testimony, the crime is not in doubt.


                It is difficult for any sane person to understand or buy into the idea that she didn't know she was in the wrong apartment on the wrong floor.

                The exact phrasing to describe it is "Knew or Reasonably Should Have Known". If you step into your back yard, fire your gun, and the bullet goes a quarter mile and kills the neighbor's dog that you definitely weren't shooting at, you still reasonably should have known that you fired in an unsafe direction and had responsibility to fire in a safe direction. While the two floors would have looked similar, she still reasonably should have known that she was not on the right floor, and barring that, upon entry that she was not in the right apartment.

                She fits the media fed perception of a trigger happy, short fused, hot head with a badge. I really don't know if that is the case, but that is the perception.

                In this case perception isn't far off from reality. I'd leave the trigger happy, and take off the short fused and hot head. Trigger Happy and Incompetent. There's nothing to prove that she had a temper flare up or anything that would indicate that she's particularly a hothead.

                But this does lead to a question, are Police academy's required to teach cadets how to defuse a situation or is the training limited to seeing every exchange with another human or animal as a threat to be eliminated with lethal force?
                I fear that this has become the narrative of the press and Hollywood.
                The problem, as I noted above, is that the academies go overboard training in verbal deescalation. To the point that they've removed a lot of the physical deescalation, aka using your empty hands. Couple that with a general lack of the necessary kinds of physical fitness and martial knowledge among the bulk of your current crop of rookies, and you have a recipe for these things to happen.

                Academies teach the basics of marksmanship because its a requirement, and honestly they don't do that good of a job there either. So what you have is a group of low-motivation types trained to a very basic standard walking around.

                The attrition in the industry is sky high. IIRC Dallas PD has somewhere around a thousand openings unfilled. So as an administrator you have to accept anyone that signs up and can pass the bottom-level standards. Leaves a lot of room for the incompetent to get in by virtue of barely squeaking by the tests. The final arbiter was supposed to be the Field Training Officers, but the experienced ones are under pressure to pass less competent people, and a lot of agencies have cops with barely any experience as training officers. The major PD in my county has cops with 1 year out of the academy as training officers, teaching the next generation. That's terrifying to me. I didn't get to be a training officer until I had right at 7 years. You don't even know how to BE a cop until year 3 or so, you're always asking for advice or help.

                So you have a crop of less competent people passing a basic course that is emphasizing the two ends of the spectrum on use of force. These people have likely never been in a physical fight in their life. They're being trained in the field by either low experience officers or by officers under incredible pressure from the top to pass them. The result is not in doubt, I'm surprised it's taken so long. In the rush to demand 'accountability' by 'prosecution' on every OIS no matter the circumstances, the American Public has gutted its police force of the exact sort of motivated, intelligent, fit, moral person that it needs to make Police....because those people can always do something else.....and most of them have.
                Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                Comment


                • Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

                  The problem, as I noted above, is that the academies go overboard training in verbal deescalation. To the point that they've removed a lot of the physical deescalation, aka using your empty hands. Couple that with a general lack of the necessary kinds of physical fitness and martial knowledge among the bulk of your current crop of rookies, and you have a recipe for these things to happen.

                  Academies teach the basics of marksmanship because its a requirement, and honestly they don't do that good of a job there either. So what you have is a group of low-motivation types trained to a very basic standard walking around.

                  The attrition in the industry is sky high. IIRC Dallas PD has somewhere around a thousand openings unfilled. So as an administrator you have to accept anyone that signs up and can pass the bottom-level standards. Leaves a lot of room for the incompetent to get in by virtue of barely squeaking by the tests. The final arbiter was supposed to be the Field Training Officers, but the experienced ones are under pressure to pass less competent people, and a lot of agencies have cops with barely any experience as training officers. The major PD in my county has cops with 1 year out of the academy as training officers, teaching the next generation. That's terrifying to me. I didn't get to be a training officer until I had right at 7 years. You don't even know how to BE a cop until year 3 or so, you're always asking for advice or help.

                  So you have a crop of less competent people passing a basic course that is emphasizing the two ends of the spectrum on use of force. These people have likely never been in a physical fight in their life. They're being trained in the field by either low experience officers or by officers under incredible pressure from the top to pass them. The result is not in doubt, I'm surprised it's taken so long. In the rush to demand 'accountability' by 'prosecution' on every OIS no matter the circumstances, the American Public has gutted its police force of the exact sort of motivated, intelligent, fit, moral person that it needs to make Police....because those people can always do something else.....and most of them have.
                  Excellent observations, there is nothing to add, I do believe her texts will have a lot of weight at sentencing,
                  What do you think, first, second degree, manslaughter, negligent homicide?
                  Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                  Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                  Comment


                  • 2nd Degree. She shot him with the intention of killing him, shows a level, albiet relatively low, of malice.
                    Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

                      So you agree with me, she should have retreated and called for either back up, or called 911. So you attack me.
                      And you agree with me that she was apparently poorly trained, so you attacked me.
                      Also, She did her self no favor by telling the court she pulled her weapon with the intent to kill. so you attacked me.
                      I attacked your claim that what I cited about the legal implications of a "mistake of fact" does not apply to police officers.
                      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 pamak View Post

                        I attacked your claim that what I cited about the legal implications of a "mistake of fact" does not apply to police officers.
                        You shouldn't always jump to the conclusion that disagreement is insulting nor an attack on your integrity. I made the observation that in this case your observation didn't apply. There was no "Mistakes of Facts".
                        Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                        Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

                          You shouldn't always jump to the conclusion that disagreement is insulting nor an attack on your integrity. I made the observation that in this case your observation didn't apply. There was no "Mistakes of Facts".
                          And I made the observation that you make things up since you offer an unsupported claim.Nothing personal about it.
                          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


                          • She was convicted of Murder and got 10 years in prison (a slap on the wrist), that should be the end of all speculations here!
                            Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                            Comment


                            • I heard 10 years.

                              I do not know the norms for sentencing, but to me it sound excessive. On the other hand, my view of the criminal code in the US in general is that it is excessive.Of course, if this is the norm in TX for such type of murder then everybody should be treated the same.

                              The issue for holding cops accountable cannot be solved by just throwing the book at a specific cop. Other systemic behavior should be addressed. In this case, the decision by the Dallas PD (IIRC) during the early stages of the investigation to "inform" the public about the few grams of weed that were found at the victim's house is lame and whoever made such decision should suffer administrative penalties.

                              The attempt to initially recommend manslaughter for the cop's crime should also be scrutinized. If the cop told to the investigators that she pulled the trigger with an intend to kill, then such statement does not justify why the TX Rangers talked initially about manslaughter. Recall by the way (and it was mentioned in this thread) that there was a big disagreement between the DA and the Rangers about the proper charge.

                              Finally , some police chief must explain why she was not arrested immediately after what happened. I do not know if any of the above issues were scrutinized or if people just forgot about them and focused only on the female cop.

                              p.s. By the way, if the cop did admit during the early stages of the investigation that she pulled the trigger with an intend to kill, then this can explain why her lawyers let her testify. In such scenario, the best they could hope for was that her tears could move the jurors. If she had remained silent, it would not change the fact that the prosecutor could still use her statement showing an intend to kill
                              Last edited by pamak; 02 Oct 19, 23:30.
                              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 Mountain Man View Post

                                Got proof of that? I've seen much greater mistakes made by ordinary people under similar circumstances. I've seen intelligent people pull into "their driveway", enter "their home" and find themselves in the wrong home entirely.

                                We live in a world of cookie cutter homes and apartments, and a tired person could easily make a mistake.

                                tragic? Yes. Criminal? No without proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, the existing legal standard. She's a cop, and cops sometimes have to shoot people. Unless you have positive proof that she does this as a pattern, you're merely gossiping.

                                Criminals in America get the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, so does this officer.
                                I was thinking that. If she had been distracted, thinking about something else I can easily see her going to the wrong floor. Should have realised before she shot the bloke though!
                                "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X