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

[JoeMorgue]

You can point to another case that is as unusual as this?

This case isn't unusual. "Walk into someone house, shot them while they are sitting there doing nothing" wouldn't even be a discussion in any sane society, and wouldn't be one on this board without

A) an epidemic of law enforcement shooting black men

B) An army of people writing pro-innocence fan fiction about this woman.

 

[Elagabalus]

Yet if you consider yourself a reasonable person (as most of us do), and can remember making similar errors, it pretty much is a lock for a "reasonable error" or "mistake of fact" if you prefer.

As someone who has made similar errors, I would say that that excuse only gets you to the door, as it were. It doesn't justify blowing someone away even if she were in the correct apartment which, of course, she wasn't.

 

[ArchSas]

Yet if you consider yourself a reasonable person (as most of us do), and can remember making similar errors, it pretty much is a lock for a "reasonable error" or "mistake of fact" if you prefer.

Guyger being a police officer makes the bar of "reasonable error" much higher, though (at least, IMO). She wasn't an ordinary person responding to an unfamiliar situation; presumably, she had training in how to handle this kind of situation, through things like fully assessing a situation and trying to deescalate before moving to lethal force (AFAIK, pretty common in police training). Even somethings as basic and common as getting a concealed carry permit generally requires education in deescalation measures, as well. She was a trained professional that knew better and should have done better, but completely failed, and should be held accountable.

 

[Distracted1]

Guyger being a police officer makes the bar of "reasonable error" much higher, though (at least, IMO). She wasn't an ordinary person responding to an unfamiliar situation; presumably, she had training in how to handle this kind of situation, through things like fully assessing a situation and trying to deescalate before moving to lethal force (AFAIK, pretty common in police training). Even somethings as basic and common as getting a concealed carry permit generally requires education in deescalation measures, as well. She was a trained professional that knew better and should have done better, but completely failed, and should be held accountable.

Had she been on duty, acting in accordance with protocols for entering a residence- I would agree.
I don't expect LEOs to be more than human.

Which part of her training dealt with " how to go home"?

 

[ArchSas]

Had she been on duty, acting in accordance with protocols for entering a residence- I would agree.
I don't expect LEOs to be more than human.

Which part of her training dealt with " how to go home"?

She's not under trial for going home, she's under trial for shooting someone. On duty or not, when facing a confrontation like that, she should have resorted to her training, because it's the proper way to handle that situation. Especially consider that, broadly speaking, off-duty officers are seen as having the same authority as when on duty. Maybe you don't see her negligence as a serious issue, but I do. The same way I don't think it would be acceptable for an off duty EMT to provide bad and potentially dangerous first aid to someone.

 

[Darat]

Erm, that was precisely my point. Deciding to shoot was unacceptable. And the question of 'was it reasonable for her to mistake which apartment she was in' can not be answered in any way such that it renders the subsequent decision to shoot acceptable.

Sorry I misread your post.

 

[Darat]

Interesting read



https://newsone.com/3882962/dallas-media-amber-guyger-fair-trial-botham-jean-killing/

Unfortunately that all seems par for the course.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Had she been on duty, acting in accordance with protocols for entering a residence- I would agree.
I don't expect LEOs to be more than human.

Which part of her training dealt with " how to go home"?

Jesus Christ dude.

"Listen nobody specifically trained me on how to not shoot people unarmed people sitting in their own homes!" as an excuse.

Arguing that NOT shooting unarmed people sitting in their own homes doing nothing is expecting people to be "more than human."

This is a farce. A total farce.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Jesus Christ dude.

"Listen nobody specifically trained me on how to not shoot people unarmed people sitting in their own homes!" as an excuse.

Arguing that NOT shooting unarmed people sitting in their own homes doing nothing is expecting people to be "more than human."

This is a farce. A total farce.

"Use of force consistent with training" is "just following orders" repackaged for non-military police.

It is absurdity at its highest. It's a world where a trained officer has lower standards of behavior when it comes to use of force than just a regular citizen. A citizen who shoots someone has to explain why their use of force was consistent with the law and has no "police training" crutch to lean on.

Training does not override the law. An unlawful killing is still an unlawful killing, even if poorly devised police policies lead to it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And besides her being or not being a cop makes no difference.

1. If she was "in the moment" a cop, her training dictates that she IDENTIFIES THE GODDAMN TARGET before shooting.

2. If she was "in the moment" a citizen she still had a legal, moral, and hell logical mandate to IDENTIFY THE GODDAMN TARGET before shooting.

Citizen, cop, MIB secret agent... none of them are allowed to just fire into the dark.

But the racist apologist are demanding this lady remain "Schrodinger's Cop in Schrodinger's Situation" where the apartment is perfectly light enough for her see that there is someone in there but perfectly dark enough for her to not know he is unarmed oh and IT'S NOT HER GODDAMN APARTMENT, and when faced with the "threat" she just reflexively followed her "cop training" except the part about identifying the target and I need to be 100% clear here... that perfect balanced place DOES NOT GODDAMN EXIST.

If it's too dark to identify the target, you don't shoot. If it's light enough to identify the target it's light enough to identify the GODDAMN APARTMENT.

End of discussion. There is no weasel room in there. She either shot a man in his own apartment and SHE KNEW IT or she didn't properly identify the target.

 

[GlennB]

What he said ^

 

[plague311]

Had she been on duty

Had she been on duty and bulldozed her way into a dark apartment and shot someone that, as Joe said, she couldn't identify then I would expect her ass to be fired. I would also expect that she not have a gun in the near future.

 

[Drewbot]

And besides her being or not being a cop makes no difference.

1. If she was "in the moment" a cop, her training dictates that she IDENTIFIES THE GODDAMN TARGET before shooting.

2. If she was "in the moment" a citizen she still had a legal, moral, and hell logical mandate to IDENTIFY THE GODDAMN TARGET before shooting.

Citizen, cop, MIB secret agent... none of them are allowed to just fire into the dark.

But the racist apologist are demanding this lady remain "Schrodinger's Cop in Schrodinger's Situation" where the apartment is perfectly light enough for her see that there is someone in there but perfectly dark enough for her to not know he is unarmed oh and IT'S NOT HER GODDAMN APARTMENT, and when faced with the "threat" she just reflexively followed her "cop training" except the part about identifying the target and I need to be 100% clear here... that perfect balanced place DOES NOT GODDAMN EXIST.

If it's too dark to identify the target, you don't shoot. If it's light enough to identify the target it's light enough to identify the GODDAMN APARTMENT.

End of discussion. There is no weasel room in there. She either shot a man in his own apartment and SHE KNEW IT or she didn't properly identify the target.

If you live alone, and walk into your darkened apartment with someone coming after you, and they don't stop when you tell them to, it's reasonable to think that you would be allowed to shoot that person.

You're missing the part about mistake of fact. If she legitimately thought she was in her apartment, an intruder in the dark coming for you is a green light to shoot.

There is no requirement to identify a target in the dark if you think you are in danger in your own house.

 

[plague311]

If you live alone, and walk into your darkened apartment with someone coming after you, and they don't stop when you tell them to, it's reasonable to think that you would be allowed to shoot that person.

You're missing the part about mistake of fact. If she legitimately thought she was in her apartment, an intruder in the dark coming for you is a green light to shoot.

There is no requirement to identify a target in the dark if you think you are in danger in your own house.

He was sitting at his counter eating a ******* bowl of cereal. He wasn't "coming for" her at all.

Also, she wasn't in her own house and that's her fault. She also had to put in effort to get into that house because the door was closed. What you're saying here is nonsensical.

ETA: Everything she did that day was wrong and it was her fault. She parked on the wrong floor of the ramp, she walked into an apartment that wasn't hers, she didn't pay attention to all of the things that would alert her to it not being her apartment. Everything was her fault. Everything. No exceptions.

 

[Distracted1]

Had she been on duty and bulldozed her way into a dark apartment and shot someone that, as Joe said, she couldn't identify then I would expect her ass to be fired. I would also expect that she not have a gun in the near future.

I don't think anyone has asserted otherwise over thousands of posts on this topic.

 

[Drewbot]

He was sitting at his counter eating a ******* bowl of cereal. He wasn't "coming for" her at all.

Also, she wasn't in her own house and that's her fault. She also had to put in effort to get into that house because the door was closed. What you're saying here is nonsensical.

You might be correct.

We will see where he was shot, and we will see if the door lock was used to prop the door open, when the trial starts.

I still think they might drop the charges, because the DPD is going to get flayed open on overtime. Experts about performance issues due to fatigue, Commanders knowing about this, and City officials telling them to keep doing it.

 

[Distracted1]

He was sitting at his counter eating a ******* bowl of cereal. He wasn't "coming for" her at all.

Also, she wasn't in her own house and that's her fault. She also had to put in effort to get into that house because the door was closed. What you're saying here is nonsensical.

ETA: Everything she did that day was wrong and it was her fault. She parked on the wrong floor of the ramp, she walked into an apartment that wasn't hers, she didn't pay attention to all of the things that would alert her to it not being her apartment. Everything was her fault. Everything. No exceptions.

Was he?
How do you know this well enough to state it as fact?

 

[Thermal]

Was he?
How do you know this well enough to state it as fact?

True. Jean was a single guy, and photos of the place showed a single guy mess. That cereal bowl could have been there from that morning. Or last week.

 

[Drewbot]

The defense will stipulate that she was in the wrong apartment.

But they will stipulate that at the time of the shooting, the jury should consider that she THOUGHT she was in her apartment.

 

[plague311]

You might be correct.

We will see where he was shot, and we will see if the door lock was used to prop the door open, when the trial starts.

I still think they might drop the charges, because the DPD is going to get flayed open on overtime. Experts about performance issues due to fatigue, Commanders knowing about this, and City officials telling them to keep doing it.

Why would he prop the door open? I mean, Occam's Razor is a thing. If the apartment was dark, and she had to turn the lights on, I would bet he was getting ready to go to bed. After all, Officer Sleepy McShootFace was so tired after her 16 hours that she could barely stay awake! Probably the same goes for him? So he propped his door open just to let some people come in at random?

Was he?
How do you know this well enough to state it as fact?

I don't. The good thing about it is...it doesn't matter either way. I couldn't give a **** what he was doing because it was his god damned house and he can do whatever the **** he wants in it.

I don't care if he was hopping up and down with a loaded AK-47, smoking a joint while eating hallucinogenic mushrooms. It still doesn't give her the right to enter his house, it certainly doesn't give her the right to shoot him, and all in all it really shouldn't matter to the case.

Again, everything here is her fault.