Cont: Man shot, killed by off-duty Dallas police officer who walked into wrong apartment p2

[CORed]

Its usually doors with decorative glass inserts. They theorize that someone will break through two layers of glass and reach in to turn the deadbolt by hand. Some worry about toddlers locking people out. Both are possible, but getting trapped inside during an emergency trumps those concerns, IMO

I once lived in a rental house that had deadbolts that required a key for the inside. I didn't lock them when I was inside; just the lock on the doorknob, because I was concerned about getting out quickly in the event of a fire.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It's different states and different situations, but the guilty verdict for the Minneapolis police officer in the other thread might be instructive. Seems like a somewhat similar situation, a scaredy-cat cop guns down an unarmed person they shouldn't have. I'd note that Noor was convicted on the less severe end of the murder spectrum and is only facing up to 20 years.

Guyger's case might be treated more harshly in that she was essentially trespassing during her instance of trigger happy overreactions.

 

[beren]

It was on one of these discussion threads in this sub-fora, probably one of the "USA police acting badly" threads.

I wish when you searched for words using the search feature, it took you to the very post with the words, rather than page 1 of a 30 page thread. Makes it pretty useless.

It can take you the actual post.
It depends on if you click on the thread name or on the post title.
I just tested it and it will happily take me to the exact post.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Guyger's case might be treated more harshly in that she was essentially trespassing during her instance of trigger happy overreactions.

Yes but we've been told in very specific terms by a half dozen people who totally aren't saying she should walk that she... pause for dramatic effect thought something different, therefore being the Lathe of Heaven her thoughts create the reality she has to be judged by because reasons.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yes but we've been told in very specific terms by a half dozen people who totally aren't saying she should walk that she... pause for dramatic effect thought something different, therefore being the Lathe of Heaven her thoughts create the reality she has to be judged by because reasons.

Seems exceedingly likely that her state of mind and lack of mens rea will very much play into her defense. I'd imagine her attorney would rather have the jury believe that extreme negligence and split second reactions lead to the death of the victim rather than malice.

Arguments over her faulty assumptions and intentions could very well be the difference in many years of prison time. Noor will presumably leave prison with many years of life to live a free man which would not be the case had he been convicted of a more severe form of murder. In Guyger's case, a similar outcome might be considered a success by the defense.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Seems exceedingly likely that her state of mind and lack of mens rea will very much play into her defense. I'd imagine her attorney would rather have the jury believe that extreme negligence and split second reactions lead to the death of the victim rather than malice.

Arguments over her faulty assumptions and intentions could very well be the difference in many years of prison time. Noor will presumably leave prison with many years of life to live a free man which would not be the case had he been convicted of a more severe form of murder. In Guyger's case, a similar outcome might be considered a success by the defense.

Yes as I've said repeatedly until the same level of fervor for "mens rea" as a magic word and hair splitting over parking spots and the exact height of door numbers and placement of welcome mats is applied to black people shooting cops while executing no-knock warrants in the middle of the night (often at the wrong location funny that) or white supremacist running down protesters I maintain there's an icky sheen to this whole thing.

 

[Darat]

You think her intent was to kill a complete stranger in the wrong apartment?

Not sure what the wrong apartment has to do with it but she certainly intended "to kill a complete stranger". The evidence we already have overwhelmingly supports that, unless you want to claim we don't it was her that fired the shots that killed Jean?

 

[Darat]

Seems exceedingly likely that her state of mind and lack of mens rea will very much play into her defense. I'd imagine her attorney would rather have the jury believe that extreme negligence and split second reactions lead to the death of the victim rather than malice.

Arguments over her faulty assumptions and intentions could very well be the difference in many years of prison time. Noor will presumably leave prison with many years of life to live a free man which would not be the case had he been convicted of a more severe form of murder. In Guyger's case, a similar outcome might be considered a success by the defense.

But this was not a split second decision. She had to see Jean, deliberately unholster her gun, disengage the safety (I assume that, my knowledge of guns is a bit basic the hard bit comes out of the hole) take aim and then fire. She then decided to fire again.

That is not a split second decision.

 

[Whip]

But this was not a split second decision. She had to see Jean, deliberately unholster her gun, disengage the safety (I assume that, my knowledge of guns is a bit basic the hard bit comes out of the hole) take aim and then fire. She then decided to fire again.

That is not a split second decision.

besides the fact she was standing in a hallway to begin with and should have called for backup. how did she know there wasn't a gang in the apartment when she found the door open? or will she be hailed a hero for throwing caution to the wind?

 

[Joe Random]

It's been said a few times in this thread but I honestly believe the most damning part has nothing at all to do with whether she genuinely thought she was in her own apartment or not. There are valid reasons why you might find a stranger in your apartment. The first one which springs to mind sort of happened to me recently : my water heater line burst and it was heavily flooding my downstairs neighbor. That's the sort of situation where maintenance isn't going to give you 24 hours' notice that they'll be entering your apartment. Had I come home while they were dealing with the situation I'd have found two large strangers in my home. Less than 10 seconds of dialog would clear up the situation and no one would have needed to be shot.

Nothing I've read about the case indicates that she came anywhere near properly assessing the situation before she decided to kill. That's what will (or rather should) seal her fate, irrespective of whose apartment it really was, or whose she thought it was.

 

[Drewbot]

I still think there has to be intent.

She had to be intending to kill an unarmed man in his home.

It seems pretty clear, that she was intending to protect herself from an intruder.

I don't know what the precedence is. If any. But if a police officer intends to reach for his taser, and instead reaches for his gun, they have been cleared in past instances.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I still think there has to be intent.

She had to be intending to kill an unarmed man in his home.

And, I ask for the billionth time, doesn't that just unmake the concept of a crime? Couldn't any crime be countered with "Oh well I thought the situation I was in was different, so you have to let me go."

And no weaseling out of the question, I want an answer.

What could be a crime in your world?

 

[ponderingturtle]

But this was not a split second decision. She had to see Jean, deliberately unholster her gun, disengage the safety (I assume that, my knowledge of guns is a bit basic the hard bit comes out of the hole) take aim and then fire. She then decided to fire again.

Guns rarely have safeties anymore, they just depend on a heavy trigger pull. And of course this does result in people shooting themselves and others with regularity as well, but apparently it is considered worth it for that 1/4 second in situations like this one.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's been said a few times in this thread but I honestly believe the most damning part has nothing at all to do with whether she genuinely thought she was in her own apartment or not. There are valid reasons why you might find a stranger in your apartment. The first one which springs to mind sort of happened to me recently : my water heater line burst and it was heavily flooding my downstairs neighbor. That's the sort of situation where maintenance isn't going to give you 24 hours' notice that they'll be entering your apartment. Had I come home while they were dealing with the situation I'd have found two large strangers in my home. Less than 10 seconds of dialog would clear up the situation and no one would have needed to be shot.

Clearly you are not a cop in texas, that would be a great reason to shoot someone, why they even had threatening weapons in their hands!

 

[JoeMorgue]

Guns rarely have safeties anymore, they just depend on a heavy trigger pull. And of course this does result in people shooting themselves and others with regularity as well, but apparently it is considered worth it for that 1/4 second in situations like this one.

The standard sidearm of the Dallas PD is the SIG Sauer P226, which does not have an external manual safety.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I still think there has to be intent.

She had to be intending to kill an unarmed man in his home.

It seems pretty clear, that she was intending to protect herself from an intruder.

I don't know what the precedence is. If any. But if a police officer intends to reach for his taser, and instead reaches for his gun, they have been cleared in past instances.

There does have to be intent, but what you are describing is premeditation, not intent.

She intended to shoot the man. She intended to use what she knew to be lethal force against another person. She did not intend to tase him. She did not think her gun was loaded with blanks. She did not intend to shoot a warning shot over his head. Her actions reflect her intentions, his death is the result of her intentional acts.

Her mistake of fact may protect her from the most serious charges of murder. You'd have to refer back to the dozen or so times the Texas penal code was quoted in this thread and its ancestors to find the exact charge.

But, please stop pretending like this crime is lacking intent.

 

[JoeMorgue]

She intended to shoot the man. She intended to use what she knew to be lethal force against another person. She did not intend to tase him. She did not think her gun was loaded with blanks. She did not intend to shoot a warning shot over his head. Her actions reflect her intentions, his death is the result of her intentional acts.

And again to reiterate, these are the facts and they are not in dispute.

 

[Whip]

It seems pretty clear, that she was intending to protect herself from an intruder.

are you saying she was going to shoot herself as the rightful intruder?

 

[Darat]

I still think there has to be intent.

She had to be intending to kill an unarmed man in his home.

It seems pretty clear, that she was intending to protect herself from an intruder.

I don't know what the precedence is. If any. But if a police officer intends to reach for his taser, and instead reaches for his gun, they have been cleared in past instances.

She fired her gun at someone, her intent was to kill the person she shot at. What do you think her intent was?

 

[Joe Random]

I still think there has to be intent.

She had to be intending to kill an unarmed man in his home.

It seems pretty clear, that she was intending to protect herself from an intruder.

I don't know what the precedence is. If any. But if a police officer intends to reach for his taser, and instead reaches for his gun, they have been cleared in past instances.

IMO only : she didn't do anywhere near enough to assess the situation before deciding she needed to kill (or protect herself). Back when I took hunter safety and when the NRA was only about how to be safe with firearms, one of the first few things drilled into me was being sure about my target. She didn't in any way do that (at least as has been reported). I hate to make an analogy to a cartoon, but it's almost as if she made a South Parkian pronouncement of "it's coming right for us!" and opened fire.

I'm pro-law enforcement enough that I usually don't comment on that topic here (and so much so that I accept I'll never be allowed to sit on a jury), given the general board leanings on the issue. But even with that acknowledged bias of mine, this case just absolutely stinks to high heaven. Hell, I put more effort into target identification before going 'all guns blazing' when I was a teenager full of testosterone and bullets on his first hunting trip than what a purported law enforcement officer did in the case in question.