Dallas cop shoots man in own apartment

[101combatvet]

Common sense tells me that hiring people with PTSD to the police force is a bad idea. Given the circumstances of the job. People with PTSD should do more soothing work, like a mobile masseuse.

Then your opinion and common sense, as usual, is worthless. I would be willing to bet that you have a mental illness and don't even know it.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/l...218333735.html

interestingly there are differences between how the arrest warrant and the search warrant describe the shooting.

the first says that Guygar entered through an unlocked door, saw a dark shape and after a warning fired.

the second mentions witnesses who heard Guygar saying 'let me in' and says Jean confronted Guygar at he door before the shots.

The first was by the Rangers and the second was by Dallas PD.

looks a bit suspicious.

Not necessarily. The Rangers could have found the witnesses that DPD quoted to be untruthful, uncredible, etc.,

Remember DPD obtained a search warrant much earlier than the arrest warrant.

If the Rangers are saying she issued a verbal warning, that certainly buttresses her position.

[pamak]

Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer

Not necessarily. The Rangers could have found the witnesses that DPD quoted to be untruthful, uncredible, etc.,

Remember DPD obtained a search warrant much earlier than the arrest warrant.

If the Rangers are saying she issued a verbal warning, that certainly buttresses her position.


If the Rangers say that she issued a verbal warning based on what she says and despite the fact that witnesses give a different description, this is not just suspicious, but VERYYYYYYYYY suspicious! The county DA also mentioned in her public interview that there was some type of exchange of arguments between her and the Rangers...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ighbor-n908156

She added that she had a "spirited conversation" with the Texas Rangers for two hours on Sunday about the manslaughter charge

...

When asked about the potential for a murder charge against the officer, Johnson said "that very well may be an option."

"The grand jury is going to have a full picture of what happened in this situation," she added.

[pamak]

Meanwhile, the search warrant mentions as reason among other things probable cause for "contraband such as narcotics.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Po...493202321.html

How FU** UP is that? What makes someone ask for a warrant to search for narcotics in a case like this one? Searching for evidence in the apartment related to the crime makes sense, but searching for narcotics? If investigation cops in Texas fantasize such scenarios, then why did not they also get a search warrant for the shooter's house?

[Trung Si]

Of course You being the allknowing have a better track record than Texas Cops or the Texas Rangers, I see.

[TactiKill J.]

I refuse to believe that good cops hate bad cops when **** like this happens:

Now KXAS reports that the day after the shooting, a Dallas Police Department investigator obtained a warrant to search Jean's apartment. The warrant, signed by 292nd District Court Judge Brandon Birmingham, says the police intended to look for "any contraband, such as narcotics," that could "constitute[e] evidence of a criminal offense."
The warrant seems to suggest police had reason to believe some sort of illegal substance was present at Jean's residence. When asked whether such probable cause existed, a Dallas police spokesperson referred Reason to the Texas Rangers, who took over the investigation soon after the shooting. A Texas Rangers spokesperson, in turn, referred Reason to the Dallas County District Attorney's Office.

So it remains unclear why the warrant referenced narcotics. According to Houston-based criminal defense attorney Mark Bennett, there doesn't appear to be any legitimate legal reason for police to include that language. But there could be a practical one. "They want to smear the guy," he speculates. "He no longer has reason to complain about the search of his place, because he's dead," he adds.

http://reason.com/blog/2018/09/12/frfrfr

Same approach, different victim. This is why nfl players kneel. PD's give the black community no reason to trust them.

[pamak]

Of course You being the allknowing have a better track record than Texas Cops or the Texas Rangers, I see.

It is not about me being all-knowing. It is about me reading the facts of the investigation , and asking questions as a critical thinker. If you cannot think of a reasonable answer to address such questions, do not blame me .

[TacCovert4]

Meanwhile, the search warrant mentions as reason among other things probable cause for "contraband such as narcotics.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Po...493202321.html

How FU** UP is that? What makes someone ask for a warrant to search for narcotics in a case like this one? Searching for evidence in the apartment related to the crime makes sense, but searching for narcotics? If investigation cops in Texas fantasize such scenarios, then why did not they also get a search warrant for the shooter's house?

Funny thing about search warrants. If something's not named in said warrant, then it can be fought and excluded. So you get them as broad as possible, IOW as broad as the judge will let you have one for. My personal favorite is to include "documentation which might identify suspects, victims, or witnesses".....means that if the space is big enough to fit a power bill it can be searched. Does it mean that you get all the things on the warrant? No. But anything not included is excluded and likely excluded forever. So you ask for everything you can get.

[TacCovert4]

It is not about me being all-knowing. It is about me reading the facts of the investigation , and asking questions as a critical thinker. If you cannot think of a reasonable answer to address such questions, do not blame me .

No. You're falling into the trap that I have to train civilians out of when they become cops. You have your suspect, therefore you're trying to prove guilt. As an investigator you must start with TWO hypotheses: 1) The Suspect is Guilty. 2) The Suspect is Not Guilty (slightly different than innocent, includes accidents/negligence that isn't necessarily intentional commission of the crime in question). You then gather all the evidence, place it under both categories, and see which one fits the best.

As for evidence: Physical is always the best, including videos. Pictures and audio recordings are second best. Professional Witnesses (Medical Examiner, beat cop, doctor, paramedic, etc) are third. And dead last is eyewitnesses....any DA that says they'd run with a trial purely on civvie testimony without any of the other three.....is a moron. Eyewitnesses don't necessarily LIE, but they are known to have a looser grasp on the truth than one might think.....easiest example is a car wreck. 10 people will say they saw it, but once you speak to them for 5 minutes you'll realize that they Heard the wreck and Saw the aftermath.....they're not lying, and their analysis might be spot on. But analysis is inadmissible unless you're an "Expert Witness", and when you remove that most eyewitnesses have very little admissible factual information beyond what can be factually proven by the physical evidence anyway. It is truly rare that someone directly witnesses the entirety of a criminal act.

[pamak]

Funny thing about search warrants. If something's not named in said warrant, then it can be fought and excluded. So you get them as broad as possible, IOW as broad as the judge will let you have one for. My personal favorite is to include "documentation which might identify suspects, victims, or witnesses".....means that if the space is big enough to fit a power bill it can be searched. Does it mean that you get all the things on the warrant? No. But anything not included is excluded and likely excluded forever. So you ask for everything you can get.

Funny thing about search warrants is that they require PROBABLE CAUSE!
If by having an idiot cop shooting me creates probable cause that I use drugs, there is some problem with the procedures. if what happens here is considered the "norm", It shows that all those (including BLM) who talk about institutional problems within the law have a valid point!

[pamak]

No. You're falling into the trap that I have to train civilians out of when they become cops. You have your suspect, therefore you're trying to prove guilt. As an investigator you must start with TWO hypotheses: 1) The Suspect is Guilty. 2) The Suspect is Not Guilty (slightly different than innocent, includes accidents/negligence that isn't necessarily intentional commission of the crime in question). You then gather all the evidence, place it under both categories, and see which one fits the best.

As for evidence: Physical is always the best, including videos. Pictures and audio recordings are second best. Professional Witnesses (Medical Examiner, beat cop, doctor, paramedic, etc) are third. And dead last is eyewitnesses....any DA that says they'd run with a trial purely on civvie testimony without any of the other three.....is a moron. Eyewitnesses don't necessarily LIE, but they are known to have a looser grasp on the truth than one might think.....easiest example is a car wreck. 10 people will say they saw it, but once you speak to them for 5 minutes you'll realize that they Heard the wreck and Saw the aftermath.....they're not lying, and their analysis might be spot on. But analysis is inadmissible unless you're an "Expert Witness", and when you remove that most eyewitnesses have very little admissible factual information beyond what can be factually proven by the physical evidence anyway. It is truly rare that someone directly witnesses the entirety of a criminal act.

Who is the suspect here? The police officer or the victim! Because with all the BS i hear it sound like the victim has adopted the status of the suspect!
And you TRAINED civilians to become cops? Got it.....
As I said, collecting evidence fro a crime scene is normal, but a search warrant searching for contraband and narcotics does not have a probable cause in this case. Also, why have not they publicized the search warrant of the police officer's appartment?

[TacCovert4]

Who is the suspect here? The police officer or the victim! Because with all the BS i hear it sound like the victim has adopted the status of the suspect!

Fascinating. I believe this is the first time I've weighed in on this at all. And I believe the decedent is rather easily identified as being somewhere he's lawfully allowed to be and doing nothing unlawful.....kind of simple to identify the victim here.

And you TRAINED civilians to become cops? Got it.....

Not Trained, past tense. Train. Present Tense. I do for a living what you claim to be amazingly good at from behind a keyboard.

As I said, collecting evidence fro a crime scene is normal, but a search warrant searching for contraband and narcotics does not have a probable cause in this case. Also, why have not they publicized the search warrant of the police officer's appartment?

Actually it did have Probable Cause, since said PC was found and the SW issued.

As for why it might have bearing on the case, if you were looking for possible motives for the shooter in any homicide to commit same, you would want to know if there was potentially an illicit business relationship in play. I mean, could it have been possible that the victim was the shooter's dealer? Wouldn't have been the first cop to do dope.....we bust a few here and there for it. Just because in your narrow view of the case you decide that it's irrelevant does not in fact make it irrelevant. I think that the shooting was a dumbass being a dumbass....I agree with AJR that an agency not desperate for bodies would have probably gotten rid of her as too flighty for the job. But just like your opinion, mine is irrelevant. The only opinions that matter are those of 1 judge and 12 jurors.

As for the shooter's apartment SW not being released, a couple of possibilities: 1) The Rangers took over at that point and they don't see a reason to release jack crap. 2) Releasing it would be prejudicial to a jury, like other evidence at a trial, and the needs of internet analysts to see everything on demand are under those of the Court in the hierarchy of needs. 3) There wasn't one. The victim is dead. He cannot grant consent, therefore you have to get a SW. The shooter is alive, and could have granted consent to search, obviating the need for a SW.

[pamak]

Actually it did have Probable Cause, since said PC was found and the SW issued.

As for why it might have bearing on the case, if you were looking for possible motives for the shooter in any homicide to commit same, you would want to know if there was potentially an illicit business relationship in play. I mean, could it have been possible that the victim was the shooter's dealer? Wouldn't have been the first cop to do dope.....we bust a few here and there for it. Just because in your narrow view of the case you decide that it's irrelevant does not in fact make it irrelevant. I think that the shooting was a dumbass being a dumbass....I agree with AJR that an agency not desperate for bodies would have probably gotten rid of her as too flighty for the job. But just like your opinion, mine is irrelevant. The only opinions that matter are those of 1 judge and 12 jurors.

As for the shooter's apartment SW not being released, a couple of possibilities: 1) The Rangers took over at that point and they don't see a reason to release jack crap. 2) Releasing it would be prejudicial to a jury, like other evidence at a trial, and the needs of internet analysts to see everything on demand are under those of the Court in the hierarchy of needs. 3) There wasn't one. The victim is dead. He cannot grant consent, therefore you have to get a SW. The shooter is alive, and could have granted consent to search, obviating the need for a SW.

You make a circular argument when you say that probable cause existed because they issued a search warrant!

Also, people do not issue search warrants to investigate scenarios that MIGHT have bearing on a case. This is NOT probable cause! The point that a cop may be involved in narcotics makes sense, but in such case you start by investigating the COP for contraband and narcotics and not the victim that was shot inside his apartment. Here, we have a case when on the one hand we have the publicizing of search warrant results fo the victim and on the other hand no information about a search warrant or any results of searching the apartment of the actual suspect!

And regarding the not release of information about the shooter's apartment


1) The point is not if the Rangers thought or not that there was no reason to release "jack crap" but that the Dallas PD thought that there WAS reason to release "Jack crap" which has no bearing on the case as it has developed so far. I mean the question that they did not "think" of doing the same (and publish the SW or the results of the search for the shooter's apartment is VERY concerning. Also, notice that the publication of the search warrant and its findings came AFTER the Texas Ranger took over the case.


2) For some reason it seems that whoever wanted to make public such "jack crap" information about the search results of the victim's apartment is not concerned about the fact that it may be prejudicial to a jury. You know it is not just cops on the defense who have a right for a fair trial. The parents of the victim also have the right to see a fair trial


3) If the shooter gave her consent for a search, this does not explain why the results of such search have not become public, but the results of the search of the victim's apartment became public!

[TacCovert4]

You're claiming a lack of Probable Cause because you say so.

I'm stating that Probable Cause was found because a Search Warrant was issued. That's literally the entire point of going in front of a judicial official and getting a Search Warrant, is that you have to show that Judicial Official Probable Cause.

And as I have stated before, so this will be for the second time, when you get a search warrant, especially in a case like this, you get EVERYTHING POSSIBLE included. You get one chance, and one chance only on the search warrant. You can't go back to the apartment a week later and give it another go. You can't seize and padlock the apartment until the investigation is over, the family has a right to get in there after all.

I find it highly ironic that you, someone who has already convicted this cop, would actually rather them be tried for negligent manslaughter rather than permit an investigation that could potentially lead to first degree murder charges. Because without a thorough investigation into every possibility of showing planning or malice aforethought, this is a negligent manslaughter case all day long.

And as for what information has or has not been released......somehow I don't think that anyone really gives a damn about your opinion of what has or has not been released. I wouldn't have released ANYTHING. I applaud the Rangers on being more circumspect and professional than Dallas PD in this matter. The only thing that should have been released IMHO was that she had turned herself in on the charge....because once a warrant for arrest is served it is public information. Everything else that's released prior to Discovery in the trial process is discretionary, and I disagree with releasing a damned thing.

And I didn't see an Inventory Sheet for the victim's apartment. I only saw Search Warrant information. Not a list of seized items. It would seem that searching for Narcotics would work in the prosecution's favor if you searched and found None. It can help prove that the victim was a wonderful person cut down in the prime of his life. And I haven't seen a criminal history on the victim released.....what if he had a couple of narcotics related misdeeds in his youth? Defense could argue things that cannot be disproven.....unless you have generated evidence proving that he wasn't involved in that stuff anymore.

Narrow your focus is, colored with opinion. Broadened your mind must be, see the truth you will.

[pamak]

You're claiming a lack of Probable Cause because you say so.

I'm stating that Probable Cause was found because a Search Warrant was issued. That's literally the entire point of going in front of a judicial official and getting a Search Warrant, is that you have to show that Judicial Official Probable Cause.

And as I have stated before, so this will be for the second time, when you get a search warrant, especially in a case like this, you get EVERYTHING POSSIBLE included. You get one chance, and one chance only on the search warrant. You can't go back to the apartment a week later and give it another go. You can't seize and padlock the apartment until the investigation is over, the family has a right to get in there after all.

I find it highly ironic that you, someone who has already convicted this cop, would actually rather them be tried for negligent manslaughter rather than permit an investigation that could potentially lead to first degree murder charges. Because without a thorough investigation into every possibility of showing planning or malice aforethought, this is a negligent manslaughter case all day long.

And as for what information has or has not been released......somehow I don't think that anyone really gives a damn about your opinion of what has or has not been released. I wouldn't have released ANYTHING. I applaud the Rangers on being more circumspect and professional than Dallas PD in this matter. The only thing that should have been released IMHO was that she had turned herself in on the charge....because once a warrant for arrest is served it is public information. Everything else that's released prior to Discovery in the trial process is discretionary, and I disagree with releasing a damned thing.

And I didn't see an Inventory Sheet for the victim's apartment. I only saw Search Warrant information. Not a list of seized items. It would seem that searching for Narcotics would work in the prosecution's favor if you searched and found None. It can help prove that the victim was a wonderful person cut down in the prime of his life. And I haven't seen a criminal history on the victim released.....what if he had a couple of narcotics related misdeeds in his youth? Defense could argue things that cannot be disproven.....unless you have generated evidence proving that he wasn't involved in that stuff anymore.

Narrow your focus is, colored with opinion. Broadened your mind must be, see the truth you will.

No, I am just reading the facts that have been published so far, and I do not see why there is probable cause for the victim for contraband and narcotics but not for the cop who shot him. So, if somebody publishes information about such "probable cause" selectively, then there is a problem. If you want everything possible included in a warrant and PUBLISH such findings, then this should be the same for the cop too.

And no, this is NOT about the cop suspect and if she is guilty or not. My comments are related to what I read about the procedures of such investigation which do not make sense and show double standards in how the victim and the suspect are treated. If publishing information about the victim is part of a thorough investigation, then the same should be with the cop!

Again, you miss the point is that I do not criticize the RANGERS for not releasing anything. I criticize her Dallas PD which apparently wants to release information selectively about the victim and for things which do not have any bearing in this case as it has developed so far!

Well, see again the link I posted and you will SEE the inventory list that you missed. They actually found a few grams of marijuana and using your line of thought that seems to work against the victim and can influence a jury's perception in a case where officially up until now we have ZERO evidence that drugs have been an issue in this case and the charges against the cop show ZERO such connection! So, what is the point of publishing such information? And why is it that the VICTIM is treated like he is a suspect but similar information about the real suspect is protected?

Or to put it in a more clear terms: Let's assume that the victim is not a nice person for whatever reason! Does this mean that any cop is justified to mistakenly enter the victim's apartment and kill him?